NationStates Jolt Archive

I will keep this short, sweet, and to the point. The reason Communism and Socialism contiune to fail is because of various reason. However, I will just hit on the main one.

Power- People crave power. It's human nature for us to want to be at the highest level of authority in our field. There will always be rulers, President, Dicatators etc. These political ideology goes against this simple human nature functions.

Greed- Let's face it, unless you know the person personally, or you are looking for something in return, you're less apt to help your fellow man. Not to say that people don't help fellow strangers, it's just that it happens alot less. Once again it's human nature. It's human nature for us to look out for our "pack" first and foremoth and then other packs when we feel like it. These political ideology try to force everyone to work together, to share, to divide up our reasources, etc. For the better of humanity. Let's face it, the human species aren't communial. We are indiviualist.

Also, it's human nature for us to try to get the best stuff, or to get the stuff that serves us first.

So in conclusion, These political ideology goes against human nature, and that why they always fail.

If an ideology goes against human nature then all you need to do is change human nature. If genetic engineering is possible then it may be possible to engineer any traits that are desired. Also design benevolent superintelligent artificial intelligences and give them all the power. It will be like Ian Banks's Culture novels.:p

See this thread for DNA surgery debate.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=465145

The short and simple answer is: People. No need to go farther than that. Communism would work perfectly if there were no people...

The short and simple answer is: People. No need to go farther than that. Communism would work perfectly if there were no people...

Ahh, but would it still be communism? Or would it just be a desert?

Trans-human']If an ideology goes against human nature then all you need to do is change human nature. If genetic engineering is possible then it may be possible to engineer any traits that are desired. Also design benevolent superintelligent artificial intelligences and give them all the power. It will be like Ian Banks's Culture novels.:p

Heh, good luck in trying to change millions of years worth of human nature.

You don't need to discuss this. No ideal form of government works.

You don't need to discuss this. No ideal form of government works.

Capitalism and democracy seem to be working pretty well. Democratic Republic also seem to be working well.

Heh, good luck in trying to change millions of years worth of human nature.

No, not millions. We've gone from tribal to feudal to compassionate to empire to dark ages then to feudal then to industrialism. In humanity's 15-20 something thousand years of existence, we've been apt to change alot. It's not hard.

Kill everyone but a small group, and teach them that. Eventually it catches on.

No, not millions. We've gone from tribal to feudal to compassionate to empire to dark ages then to feudal then to industrialism. In humanity's 15-20 something thousand years of existence, we've been apt to change alot. It's not hard.

Kill everyone but a small group, and teach them that. Eventually it catches on.

and meanwhile I'll hide out in caves, and after you teach those small group of people, I'll introduce the concept of personal ownership/property and money!

*rubs hands together in evil way*

Capitalism and democracy seem to be working pretty well. Democratic Republic also seem to be working well.


As if we actually have capitalism and democracy.


Democratic republic doesn't count, it takes two different ideals and tries to create a happy medium.

Socialism is failing?

Seems nobody remembered to inform Scandinavia.

yes, but people frown upon killing everyone, with the exeption of a small group off people. Look at WWII.

Socialism is failing?

Seems nobody remembered to inform Scandinavia.
Isn't Scandinavia more a mix of capitalism and welfare, rather than socialism?

and meanwhile I'll hide out in caves, and after you teach those small group of people, I'll introduce the concept of personal ownership/property and money!

*rubs hands together in evil way*

You monster.:D

As if we actually have capitalism and democracy.


Democratic republic doesn't count, it takes two different ideals and tries to create a happy medium.

Hey the USA is a Democratic Republic country, so I say we count it.

Isn't Scandinavia more a mix of capitalism and welfare, rather than socialism?
It's socialism enough.

It's socialism enough.
I would call it welfare capitalism really. Its an ideal economic system. The government provides for basic needs, such as health and education, yet a powerful free market exists.

Hey the USA is a Democratic Republic country, so I say we count it.

No, that logic is horrible. "Democratic Republic" is not an ideal government, it is a blend of two ideal governments. IT IS NOT AN IDEAL GOVERNMENT. IT SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED AS ONE JUST BECAUSE THE US HAS ONE.


Happy mediums usually work. Less extreme variations usually work. Ideological governments do not. No communist society will end up like the vision of one would suggest. No capitalistic economic system will ever continue as it is meant to without having to be messed with. Etc.

It's socialism enough.


You can buy stock in companies from Finland, Norway and Sweden (which you can), that means they have an economy based on capital investment.

Guess what sort of economic system that leaves you with.

You can buy stock in companies from Finland, Norway and Sweden (which you can), that means they have an economy based on capital investment.

Guess what sort of economic system that leaves you with.
Exactly. Its a benevolent form of capitalism, welfare capitalism if you will. By ensuring that everyone gets educated and stays healthy they ensure that all enter the capitalist free market on an equal footing, more or less so anyway.

You can buy stock in companies from Finland, Norway and Sweden (which you can), that means they have an economy based on capital investment.

Guess what sort of economic system that leaves you with.
You're not seriously suggesting that they are capitalist?

No western economy is actually capitalist. The UK isn't, the US isn't, Germany isn't etc.

Trans-human']If an ideology goes against human nature then all you need to do is change human nature.

yeah, that'll work

You're not seriously suggesting that they are capitalist?

No western economy is actually capitalist. The UK isn't, the US isn't, Germany isn't etc.
No, no Western economy is perfectly capitalist. That doesn't mean that they aren't capitalist though. All have elements of capitalism within them though, some more than others. The Scandinavian economies, if anything, are forms of welfare capitalism.

No, no Western economy is perfectly capitalist. All have elements of capitalism within them though, some more than others. The Scandinavian economies, if anything, are forms of welfare capitalism.




No it isn't. Capitalism requires a complete absence of government intervention in the economy.

From that statement alone, it's unimaginably obvious that no western economy is actually capitalist.

No it isn't. Capitalism requires a complete absence of government intervention in the economy.

From that statement alone, it's unimaginably obvious that no western economy is actually capitalist.
They are essentially mixed economies, with strong free markets, ergo capitalist elements.

First comment: Don't. Just don't. I doubt there is a single point in the entire argument space of this debate that hasn't been covered in previous threads. This subject is up there with theism/atheism arguments, a.k.a. God-bothering.

Power- People crave power. It's human nature for us to want to be at the highest level of authority in our field. There will always be rulers, President, Dicatators etc. These political ideology goes against this simple human nature functions.

Peace is a lie; there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force will free me.
- The Sith Code

Just because.

The goal of Capitalism is the same as the goals of both (yes I am aware that what i'm about to say is an oversimplification), Socialism and Communism, (i.e. to eliminate the poor). The difference is in how the problem of poverty is approached, in Capitalist beliefs it is the job of the rich to HELP the poor, thus eliminating (at least in theory) the lower class. Whereas, in Communism and Socialism the problem is approached by saying the GOVERNMENT not private coporations are responsible for eliminating the lower class, or rather paying everyone the same wages and contributing to those who cannot work so that all live the same.

The problem with the Western outlook on Communism and Socialism, is that with the exception of a small minority, Western peoples understand Communism especially as dictated by Stalinism, Moaism, and Trotskyites (to name a few). The "West" is also seen as being a land ruled by "Capitalists" when it is just more Capitalistic.

So, yes with the current evolution of human beings communism isn't possible; however, many (This doesn't necessarily include you) people think Capitalism works, when in fact Capitalism doesn't work. More Liberal forms of Capitalism appear to be working bettter than more conservative forms of Communism (i.e. Socialism in this case) do, but this is only because it plays more into human nature as it now stands.

They are essentially mixed economies, with strong free markets, ergo capitalist elements.

But what I'm saying is, since we have anti-trust laws, and since our government supports companies that it needs (like the railroads in the 1800s and countless other industries since) and destroys all monopolies in industries where it doesn't need any of their products, we don't have a capitalistic economy. Our economy definetely has elements of a capitalistic economy, but you can't just call it capitalistic without stating that it also supports competition (except in the noted exceptions where it destroys competition).

No western economy is actually capitalist.

unless, of course, one cares to use terms properly. in that case, they obviously have been and are still capitalist. capitalism, as a term for a particular economic system was invented to describe the system in those countries.

But what I'm saying is, since we have anti-trust laws, and since our government supports companies that it needs (like the railroads in the 1800s and countless other industries since) and destroys all monopolies in industries where it doesn't need any of their products, we don't have a capitalistic economy. Our economy definetely has elements of a capitalistic economy, but you can't just call it capitalistic without stating that it also supports competition (except in the noted exceptions where it destroys competition).
And I agree with this. I never said anything to the contrary. They are mixed economies ultimately which lean towards capitalism.

Let's face it, the human species aren't communial. We are indiviualist.

we could face that, sure. unless one cares to look at the actual evidence, anyway.

The reason communism doesn't work is because it requires total dedication to the state from all the individuals in society. Unfortuantly if there is one thing humans are good at it's disagreeing so the only way to achieve this is through excessive use of power (see George Orwells 1984). This leaves people considerably worse off than under capitalist systems (well mixed systems really)

we could face that, sure. unless one cares to look at the actual evidence, anyway.
Humans evolve based on collaboration, and communication, rather than strictly applying "survival of the fittest." So whilst we are individualist, we also collaborate to move forwards. Of course, collaboration is still done in our own best interests, thus maintaining human ego-centrism.

unless, of course, one cares to use terms properly. in that case, they obviously have been and are still capitalist. capitalism, as a term for a particular economic system was invented to describe the system in those countries.
And as such it differs from what many describe as "anarcho-capitalism," no?

unless, of course, one cares to use terms properly. in that case, they obviously have been and are still capitalist. capitalism, as a term for a particular economic system was invented to describe the system in those countries.
Not pure, free market, capitalism.

Not pure, free market, capitalism.
Isn't that its own distinct brand of capitalism though?

unless, of course, one cares to use terms properly. in that case, they obviously have been and are still capitalist. capitalism, as a term for a particular economic system was invented to describe the system in those countries.

Here I must disagree with you, Capitalism when used to denote a pseudo-governmental system describes a government ruled by CEO's of large corporations. The Capitalist system of beliefs describes a system where it is the job of the rich to remove the poor from poverty, making it the opposite (or possibly parrallel, if you note how a capitalism is ruled by corporations) of a Communism where the government takes over that role. So in fact neither the U.S. nor the U.K. are truely Capitalistic, just among the most Capitalistic governments in the world.

Isn't that its own distinct brand of capitalism though?
Well, I would say that's true capitalism. Whereas what most countries practise is semi-capitalism.

Just my opinion, mind.

Well, I would say that's true capitalism. Whereas what most countries practise is semi-capitalism.

Just my opinion, mind.
My initial argument, in any case, was to show that the Scandinavian economies are more welfare states with strong free markets than any form of socialism.

My initial argument, in any case, was to show that the Scandinavian economies are more welfare states with strong free markets than any form of socialism.
They're as close to socialism as you'll get, so they'll do for showing how socialism can be made to work.

Not pure, free market, capitalism.

true. the term 'capitalism' was not invented to describe any such beast. it was invented and is used to describe an actually existing system.

They're as close to socialism as you'll get, so they'll do for showing how socialism can be made to work.
Define socialism then.

Humans evolve based on collaboration, and communication, rather than strictly applying "survival of the fittest." So whilst we are individualist, we also collaborate to move forwards. Of course, collaboration is still done in our own best interests, thus maintaining human ego-centrism.

it's still about survival of the fittest. the fittest in our case happen to be those that cooperate the best. and this leads to several interesting aspects of human behavior.

a nice example comes from an experiment involving two people and $20. in it, one person is in charge of the money and can divide it between the two of them however they like. the other person can either agree to the split or not. if they agree, each person takes their share of the money. but if they don't agree, nobody gets anything.

now straight cost-benefit says that people should always agree to the split if they would get anything at all, as they would be better off geting 16 cents than nothing at all. but this doesn't happen. the farther off from a 50-50 split the offer is, the more likely people are to reject it. basically, we appear to 'naturally' want to punish people who don't cooperate, even at a cost to ourselves.


and then there is the anthropological evidence, which says that, if anything, we're fairly communal at a fundamental level.

They're as close to socialism as you'll get, so they'll do for showing how socialism can be made to work.

Scandanavia has the same economic system as the US, a hampered market economy. The difference is only in the degree to which the government compels, and prohibits.

As to their current situation, they are in debt past their eyeballs, they are approaching a demographic. They can't stay in the game for long without massive liberalisation.

now straight cost-benefit says that people should always agree to the split if they would get anything at all, as they would be better off geting 16 cents than nothing at all.

The experiement doesn't seem to have been imaginative. If I had been given the $20, I would have said "you can have $X if you do Y". Then we would be in negotiation over what $X should be, Y may also be in contention.

and then there is the anthropological evidence, which says that, if anything, we're fairly communal at a fundamental level.

Humans tend to be quite collectivist in a family context, but beyond an extended family (tribe/clan), this doesn't apply.

An economic system is useless if it requires fundamental changes in human nature, or can only work in the family environment.

The economic system of a family resembles socialism, the wealth it generates tends to go into a single pot, and is used to benefit the whole family. The reason it works is of course the nature of the relationship. When we love someone, we want to care for them as much as possible.

Define socialism then.

Socialism is an economic system in which the state owns all property, and state decree is the impetus of economic decisions.

It is distinct fropm capitalism because in capitalism, there is private property, and the driving force of economic activity is the subjective decisions of property owners motivated by the desire to obtain benefits.

Socialism tends towards political and social tyranny, where as capitalism tends towards democracy and liberty.

The basic problem with socialism is information. Sound economic calculation is based on profit/loss equations. A profit shows a sound use of resources, loss shows an unsound use of resources. Socialism has no means of making these calculations. So-called "market-socialism" isn't a solution, because the prices set by officials have no basis in reality.

The experiement doesn't seem to have been imaginative. If I had been given the $20, I would have said "you can have $X if you do Y". Then we would be in negotiation over what $X should be, Y may also be in contention.

why would someone want to add unnecessary and irrelevant complications to an experiment?

Humans tend to be quite collectivist in a family context, but beyond an extended family (tribe/clan), this doesn't apply.

funny thing about the 'extended family' bit. turns out that such groups are willing to metaphorically extend family rather far. out to people that are not at all family. out to whoever happens to be around, in fact.

They're as close to socialism as you'll get, so they'll do for showing how socialism can be made to work.

Aren't the scandinavian nations exporting oil, natural gas and other resources, using the income generated to pay for the welfare state?

The reason communism doesn't work is because it requires total dedication to the state from all the individuals in society. Unfortuantly if there is one thing humans are good at it's disagreeing so the only way to achieve this is through excessive use of power (see George Orwells 1984). This leaves people considerably worse off than under capitalist systems (well mixed systems really)

"Total dedication to the state" (as the organ of popular power) is hardly incompatible with disagreement? Look at Cuba today--we have a country with millions of people willing to defend their government to the death (unless and until it becomes an engine of oppression), and eager to strengthen it by criticizing its flaws and weaknesses in no uncertain terms. As a result, the people of this country are much better off than those of capitalist Haiti, the Dominican Republic, etc.

why would someone want to add unnecessary and irrelevant complications to an experiment?

Firstly, I'd have someone to carry my stiff. Secondly, it is not unnecessary. The idea that a purely arbitrary splitting of resources shows anything of significance is idiotic.

funny thing about the 'extended family' bit. turns out that such groups are willing to metaphorically extend family rather far. out to people that are not at all family. out to whoever happens to be around, in fact.

Rubbish. It has never worked that way, except in the most exceptional circumstances (like helping someone during a disaster), or the most petty (opening a door for a lady).

It is not useful in normal situations, it is therefore not a basis for an economic system.

Look at Cuba today--we have a country with millions of people willing to defend their government to the death

A fact-free statement.

(unless and until it becomes an engine of oppression),

It became an engine of oppression decades ago. All of socialism is oppression.

and eager to strengthen it by criticizing its flaws and weaknesses in no uncertain terms.

People get 30 years gaol for that.

Oh noes... another "human nature" based "argument."

*SUPEReye-roll*

The idea that a purely arbitrary splitting of resources shows anything of significance is idiotic.

i think this opinion says more about you than about the experiment.

Rubbish. It has never worked that way, except in the most exceptional circumstances (like helping someone during a disaster), or the most petty (opening a door for a lady).

It is not useful in normal situations, it is therefore not a basis for an economic system.

i suppose it is easier from your perspective to ignore the data than to deal with it. but the wealth of anthropological data remains, and it says that the cross-culturally communal aspects of pretty much all human societies are not in any way necessarily restricted to extended families. except in perhaps the most metaphorical sort of way, where people who were strangers until yesterday can become 'family' today.

Oh noes... another "human nature" based "argument."

*SUPEReye-roll*

you ever notice how those that tend rely on 'human nature' the most seem to universally be the ones with the least grasp on the dimensions of that nature?

First comment: Don't. Just don't. I doubt there is a single point in the entire argument space of this debate that hasn't been covered in previous threads. This subject is up there with theism/atheism arguments, a.k.a. God-bothering.



Peace is a lie; there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force will free me.
- The Sith Code

Just because.

:rolleyes:


There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force

:fluffle:

So Communism doesn't work. We know that.
Will capitalism work without a government?
No, it would just devolve into anarchy or a corporate feudalism at best.
Then we'd get the "divine mandates" of monopolies.
Sounds familiar.
Why will neither of these never work? People.

And I don't see why people have to define things. There's definitions of every term here in a dictionary and text book near you.

Danmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland are socialist paradises?
I always viewed it as appreciation of their citizens. After all, they can't rely on masses of immigrants pouring in, and with the small populations the goverments gotta treat their people good, or they'll go elsewhere (and they have). Who want's to move to the cold North (other than me and about two or three other people here)? Who wants to learn Swedish, Danish, Norweigan, or Finnish? Show of hands. Exactly.

Aren't the scandinavian nations exporting oil, natural gas and other resources, using the income generated to pay for the welfare state?
Norway is the only country doing that, as far as I know.
Finland certainly doens't have oil.
Denmark doesn't, with all those windmills they're building.
Sweden? I dunno, but doubt it.
Don't lump Scandinavia together! *general analness and fuming insues*

you ever notice how those that tend rely on 'human nature' the most seem to universally be the ones with the least grasp on the dimensions of that nature?
Eggzacktly.

Scandanavia has the same economic system as the US, a hampered market economy. The difference is only in the degree to which the government compels, and prohibits.

As to their current situation, they are in debt past their eyeballs, they are approaching a demographic. They can't stay in the game for long without massive liberalisation.

You guys DO KNOW that SCANDINAVIA isn't one COUNTRY, right?! (Scandinavia normally means Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark)

Now about the debts thingy, Most countries have large debts, the US is also, as you put it, in debt past their eyeballs. However I seriously doubt that for instance sweden have a large debt, we where near leveling out the debt a few years back. I seriously doubt that Norway would have a very large debt as well, regarding Finland and Denmark tough, I have no clue...

I think this opinion says more about you than about the experiment.

What could it show?

I suppose it is easier from your perspective to ignore the data than to deal with it. but the wealth of anthropological data remains, and it says that the cross-culturally communal aspects of pretty much all human societies are not in any way necessarily restricted to extended families. except in perhaps the most metaphorical sort of way, where people who were strangers until yesterday can become 'family' today.

You are missing the point, which is that whether or not it exists, it is not useful in terms of building an economic system.

Will capitalism work without a government?

Irrelevant question. In the main, government is not something capitalists find objectionable, provided it stays within its legitimate bounds, which is the protection of people's rights.

Communsim/Socialism is a traditional case of a power standoff. Everyone starts off equal, so one person tries to get a bit more power, and so he becomes powerful enough to stop anyone else taking it back.

The only way to defeat this is make the power meaningless or even unattractive. The obvious way to do this is Abicaerianism for starters (the removal of the system and idea of using money as an exchange, replacing it with, what can be described as a flat 100% income tax, but all services like food and housing are provided by the government) coupled with never having one person above anyone else. Stalin, as General-Secretary, held a position of importance and so was stood in good stead when he took over. If no-one is obviously ahead, anyone who breaks the chain by gaining more power will be noticed, and with a good set of internal party laws to give people the power to punish them, communism/socialism would (and has, in the case of 1917-24 Russia) work.

I will keep this short, sweet, and to the point. The reason Communism and Socialism contiune to fail is because of various reason. However, I will just hit on the main one.

Power- People crave power. It's human nature for us to want to be at the highest level of authority in our field. There will always be rulers, President, Dicatators etc. These political ideology goes against this simple human nature functions.

Greed- Let's face it, unless you know the person personally, or you are looking for something in return, you're less apt to help your fellow man. Not to say that people don't help fellow strangers, it's just that it happens alot less. Once again it's human nature. It's human nature for us to look out for our "pack" first and foremoth and then other packs when we feel like it. These political ideology try to force everyone to work together, to share, to divide up our reasources, etc. For the better of humanity. Let's face it, the human species aren't communial. We are indiviualist.

Also, it's human nature for us to try to get the best stuff, or to get the stuff that serves us first.

So in conclusion, These political ideology goes against human nature, and that why they always fail.

The biggest impediment to socialist/communist society, is the fact that many people are selfish.

As long as some people feel somehow cheated if they have to share, and gain no satisfaction unless they are somehow 'beating' someone else... there will always be flaws in the socialist/communist model.

Of course, when one looks at VOLUNTARY communities that use communal/communistic approaches, they are often very sucessful.

So - the problem arises when you try to apply it to those who never outgrew their greed mentality.... or 'capitalists' as they are called.

There are Two ways to get socialism to work, and here is one:

Eliminate the need to be greedy.

In other words, instead of making every one live in terraces, let them live in Mansions. Room problems might happen, but hell, it's the only way that dosen't involve killing someone.

The biggest impediment to socialist/communist society, is the fact that many people are selfish.

That's like saying "the biggest impediment to me throwing a tennis ball o he moon is gravity"

Its true, but it doesn't tell us anything.

In fact the biggest impediment to a socialist/communist society is scarcity, which cannot be abolished, unless you work out how to create energy, and matter. Repealing the laws of thermodynamics would help too.

The real question that must be asked is "which economic system best fits the world", not "how do we change the world to fit my pet theory".

It seems to me that with all this selfishness about, the best economic system is that which either reduces the harm of it, or makes it a good thing.

In the words of Adam Smith "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

Capitalism is the only economic system that turns self-interest into an advantage.

Of course, when one looks at VOLUNTARY communities that use communal/communistic approaches, they are often very sucessful.

But they don't last, or aren't really voluntary. Some people, when talking to me of "voluntary socialism" speak of the Kibbutzim. Superficially, they are right, however they needed government subsidies, which rendered them involuntary (because the subsidies came from taxation).

The only voluntary socialism that has lasted is the nuclear family.

This bring me to what all economic activity is in essence: cooperation. There are two ways to bring cooperation, good-will, and force. Force is self-explainatory, put a gun in someone's ear, and they will obey.

As to good-will. I suppose we could define as "that which motivates people to do things for you".

What motivates it? One can have the informal good-will that exists among friends and family, emotional bonds. However, where these emotional bonds don't exist, informal good-will doesn't apply. We need a formal good will. Only capitalism provides this, by trading.

For example. Let us say you are want to go somewhere, and have no transport. You need someone to take you. You could call a friend, or relative, and ask for a lift. If that is not possible, you need some other way to get someone to give you a lift. The way to do it is to trade something for the transport. What you offer in trade is a formalised piece of good-will.

Where does socialism fit in? Socialism means obtaining cooperation by force. It is the only way that socialism can work generally in the long term.

Communsim/Socialism is a traditional case of a power standoff. Everyone starts off equal, so one person tries to get a bit more power, and so he becomes powerful enough to stop anyone else taking it back.

The only way to defeat this is make the power meaningless or even unattractive. The obvious way to do this is Abicaerianism for starters (the removal of the system and idea of using money as an exchange, replacing it with, what can be described as a flat 100% income tax, but all services like food and housing are provided by the government) coupled with never having one person above anyone else. Stalin, as General-Secretary, held a position of importance and so was stood in good stead when he took over. If no-one is obviously ahead, anyone who breaks the chain by gaining more power will be noticed, and with a good set of internal party laws to give people the power to punish them, communism/socialism would (and has, in the case of 1917-24 Russia) work.

What such a system would need is the most appalling totalitarian state.

You cannot abolish the fact that humans act in what they perceive to be their self-interest. In a socialist state, this would undermine the economic plan to the point that it is socialism only in name, with the main economic activity being the black market.

How do you stop the black market?

You need three things:

1) Severe punishments.

2) The strong likelihood that that one will be caught

3) The certainty that in the event of being caught, the severe punishment will be administered.


1) Punishments will need to be comprable with a major felony, up to the death penalty. A system of concentration camps, or labour camps would be needed.

2) A potential black marketeer must fear that if he engages in a black market transaction, he will be caught. This means that he must fear that anyone he sees, or meets is a black marketeer, even the people with whom he does business, even close friends and neighbours are police informants.

3) Jury trials are not sufficient to get people punished. A jury won't send a man to his death because he tried to buy or sell something on the black market. Decisions must be handed over to administrative tribunals, or even the police on the spot.

So what do we have, we have a state with massively severe punishments, a large apparatus of secret police and informers, and a court system which is intended to serve the state rather than justice.

The example you chose is interesting, since after the time you put down, what I outlined above was introduced. You see, Stalin was the result of socialist natural selection, the selection of the worst. His unusual willingness, and ability to use terror and violence made him the man for socialism.

Of course, equalisation of power would make socialism impossible. It takes the abolute concentration of power at the top to make it work.

As to your point about abolishing money. Money is not a creature of the state. It is a creature of private markets that has now been taken over by the state. Markets will find a money. In post-war Germany, under occupation there was price controls, rationing, and a Reichsmark rendered utterly worthless by Hitler's constant inflation. A black market came into being. Reichsmarks weren't useful as money, cigarettes and chocolate became the money. A money will always exist, even if the state outlaws money, media of exchange will emerge.

One last point, I remember seeing a film rendition of "1984", and it showed such a communal lifestyle in which everyone ate in a "mess". Just a thought.

There are Two ways to get socialism to work, and here is one:

Eliminate the need to be greedy.

In other words, instead of making every one live in terraces, let them live in Mansions. Room problems might happen, but hell, it's the only way that dosen't involve killing someone.

This would mean eliminating scarcity, which is impossible given that matter and energy cannot be created.

Of course, what you're really saying is "make socialism work by making socialism work", since socialism promises to do what you say it needs to do to work.

Another point that the socialists have not addressed is the information problem.

Capitalism has a simple means of determining is a particular use of resources is sound, and efficient, and meets the demands of the people. Profit and loss. If too little of an item is being produced, then its price rises, and therefore its profitability, giving an incentive to produce more. If too much is being produced, prices go down, and therefore profitability, giving an incentive to reduce production. The reason that these prices exist is private property, as the price simply means how much property people are willing to give for the item in question.

Socialism lacks these because there can be no prices that reflect reality. Prices can be set arbitrarily, but they are irrelevant. It is the same as the government telling people exactly how much they can make/get.

A national economy is simply too complex to make plans that can be reconciled with reality.

Capitalism and democracy seem to be working pretty well. Democratic Republic also seem to be working well.

Half of the planet is lacking food and water. One child die from starvation every 3 seconds, while we destroy stocks of food to keep the price high enough. Even if "rich" capitalist countries, people live below the poverty level, don't have access to healthcare, decent housing or decent houses. Meanwhile, we are destroying the planet, abusing from its ressources, and carelessly polluting everything, from the air to the seas ot the rivers.

Living standards are going downwards in most of the countries. The number of poor is raising, both in rich countries and worldwide. The planet is ravaged with wars, mostly for the control of ressources like oil. The world economy is as unstable as it ever was, nothing preventing a new 1929 to happen - and this time, it'll be even worse.

But capitalism works pretty well ? Open your eyes ! Stop watching Fox News, and look at the world around you ! Capitalism is an utter failure. It's creating immense sufferings everywhere, including in the richest countries. It's killing millions of people each year. It's destroying the planet itself.

----

For all the "people are selfish" and "human nature" rent, I'll state once again that there is no such thing as "human nature", that a careful study of history and of different cultures will show you that mentality and human behavior is first all the consequence of the society. And that many many people, even in the reckless, selfish, law-of-jungle capitalism are nice, sharing, helping, and would go as far as to give their own lives to save others. But well, I explained that already in more details several time, and people still rant about this myth of "human nature is greed and selfishness"...

My god, I've never seen so much rightist wanking in a single thread in my entire life.

However, the poster above me has pretty much done my job for me, so I really have no need to comment any further. :D

That's like saying "the biggest impediment to me throwing a tennis ball o he moon is gravity"

Its true, but it doesn't tell us anything.


On the contrary... it tells us everything. I'm not sure what the important details are that you feel are missing.... in either case.


In fact the biggest impediment to a socialist/communist society is scarcity, which cannot be abolished, unless you work out how to create energy, and matter. Repealing the laws of thermodynamics would help too.


This is patently untrue. Yes - resources ARE finite. But, a nation such as the US could easily feed it's entire population to an adequate level. The only reason there is scarcity in this model, is because it is an artifact.... 'scarcity' caused by economy.



The real question that must be asked is "which economic system best fits the world", not "how do we change the world to fit my pet theory".

It seems to me that with all this selfishness about, the best economic system is that which either reduces the harm of it, or makes it a good thing.

In the words of Adam Smith "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

Capitalism is the only economic system that turns self-interest into an advantage.


You say that like it is a good thing. Of course, it is only true in as much as it is to the advantage of SOME.... mainly, in your illustration, the butcher, brewerr or baker.


But they don't last, or aren't really voluntary. Some people, when talking to me of "voluntary socialism" speak of the Kibbutzim. Superficially, they are right, however they needed government subsidies, which rendered them involuntary (because the subsidies came from taxation).


Actually, if all you need is an example of 'partial' voluntary socialism, one only has to look at English history, regarding 'commons'.


The only voluntary socialism that has lasted is the nuclear family.


Which is a very recent invention, and less accurate a model than the actual long-term model... the extended family.


This bring me to what all economic activity is in essence: cooperation. There are two ways to bring cooperation, good-will, and force. Force is self-explainatory, put a gun in someone's ear, and they will obey.

As to good-will. I suppose we could define as "that which motivates people to do things for you".

What motivates it? One can have the informal good-will that exists among friends and family, emotional bonds. However, where these emotional bonds don't exist, informal good-will doesn't apply. We need a formal good will. Only capitalism provides this, by trading.


First - capitalism is not the only trade mechanism.

Secondly - there are actually other ways to achieve cooperation. Simple self-interest is one. Coercion is another. Duty might be a third...


For example. Let us say you are want to go somewhere, and have no transport. You need someone to take you. You could call a friend, or relative, and ask for a lift. If that is not possible, you need some other way to get someone to give you a lift. The way to do it is to trade something for the transport. What you offer in trade is a formalised piece of good-will.


Again, not necessarily. Try standing by the roadside near some large cities, as the morning business traffic goes in.

You will see two other distinct arrangements at work.


Where does socialism fit in? Socialism means obtaining cooperation by force.


No. No, it really doesn't. But thanks for your definition.


It is the only way that socialism can work generally in the long term.


Again, patently untrue... and not even superficially logical.


What such a system would need is the most appalling totalitarian state.

You cannot abolish the fact that humans act in what they perceive to be their self-interest. In a socialist state, this would undermine the economic plan to the point that it is socialism only in name, with the main economic activity being the black market.


First - you seem incapable of separating statism from socialism.

Second - a black market is not determined by interest, or by socialism... it is determined by inequality. If everyone HAS plenty of food, there is no market for it.


How do you stop the black market?

You need three things:

1) Severe punishments.

2) The strong likelihood that that one will be caught

3) The certainty that in the event of being caught, the severe punishment will be administered.


1) Punishments will need to be comprable with a major felony, up to the death penalty. A system of concentration camps, or labour camps would be needed.

2) A potential black marketeer must fear that if he engages in a black market transaction, he will be caught. This means that he must fear that anyone he sees, or meets is a black marketeer, even the people with whom he does business, even close friends and neighbours are police informants.

3) Jury trials are not sufficient to get people punished. A jury won't send a man to his death because he tried to buy or sell something on the black market. Decisions must be handed over to administrative tribunals, or even the police on the spot.

So what do we have, we have a state with massively severe punishments, a large apparatus of secret police and informers, and a court system which is intended to serve the state rather than justice.


First - your conclusion is flawed... even in your example, your court is serving justice. It just happens that justice is also the state interest in that example.

Second - The other reason the conclusion is flawed, is because you make a Strawman argument. You argue corruption (black market), where such is not automatically IMPLICIT.... you then assert your own responses to that problem, and draw a conclusion from your own inability to solve a problem you just invented.


The example you chose is interesting, since after the time you put down, what I outlined above was introduced. You see, Stalin was the result of socialist natural selection, the selection of the worst. His unusual willingness, and ability to use terror and violence made him the man for socialism.


No - Stalin was the perfect man for Stalinism. Stalinism does not equate to socialism. One should bear in mind that much of Jesus' wisdom is 'socialist'.

Half of the planet is lacking food and water. One child die from starvation every 3 seconds, while we destroy stocks of food to keep the price high enough. Even if "rich" capitalist countries, people live below the poverty level, don't have access to healthcare, decent housing or decent houses. Meanwhile, we are destroying the planet, abusing from its ressources, and carelessly polluting everything, from the air to the seas ot the rivers.

Living standards are going downwards in most of the countries. The number of poor is raising, both in rich countries and worldwide. The planet is ravaged with wars, mostly for the control of ressources like oil. The world economy is as unstable as it ever was, nothing preventing a new 1929 to happen - and this time, it'll be even worse.

But capitalism works pretty well ? Open your eyes ! Stop watching Fox News, and look at the world around you ! Capitalism is an utter failure. It's creating immense sufferings everywhere, including in the richest countries. It's killing millions of people each year. It's destroying the planet itself.

----

For all the "people are selfish" and "human nature" rent, I'll state once again that there is no such thing as "human nature", that a careful study of history and of different cultures will show you that mentality and human behavior is first all the consequence of the society. And that many many people, even in the reckless, selfish, law-of-jungle capitalism are nice, sharing, helping, and would go as far as to give their own lives to save others. But well, I explained that already in more details several time, and people still rant about this myth of "human nature is greed and selfishness"...


i can only agree with Kilobugya

:rolleyes: if it's human nature how could asian nations and American Indian tribes be based on equality? It's just American and European Nature to crave power.

On the contrary... it tells us everything. I'm not sure what the important details are that you feel are missing.... in either case.

Nothing of worth.

This is patently untrue. Yes - resources ARE finite. But, a nation such as the US could easily feed it's entire population to an adequate level. The only reason there is scarcity in this model, is because it is an artifact.... 'scarcity' caused by economy.

Nonsense. Every attempt to do such a thing has resulted in failure.

You say that like it is a good thing. Of course, it is only true in as much as it is to the advantage of SOME.... mainly, in your illustration, the butcher, brewerr or baker.

Are you saying it does not advantage one to have meat, bread, and drink?

Secondly - there are actually other ways to achieve cooperation. Simple self-interest is one. Coercion is another. Duty might be a third...

Trading is self-interest. As for duty, it is self-interest in a roundabout way.

No. No, it really doesn't. But thanks for your definition.

Yes, it does.

Again, patently untrue... and not even superficially logical.

Rubbish.

First - you seem incapable of separating statism from socialism.

Second - a black market is not determined by interest, or by socialism... it is determined by inequality. If everyone HAS plenty of food, there is no market for it.

First: There is no real difference. Socialism cannot survive without a state.

Second: Of course a black market is determined by economic self-interest. People only go into the black market because they think it will get them what they need/want. There is no other reason for it.

Socialism tends to create the need for a black market, and it is usually the only thing that works.

First - your conclusion is flawed... even in your example, your court is serving justice. It just happens that justice is also the state interest in that example.

You are therefore saying that the peaceful persuit of economic self-interest is a crime.

Second - The other reason the conclusion is flawed, is because you make a Strawman argument. You argue corruption (black market), where such is not automatically IMPLICIT.... you then assert your own responses to that problem, and draw a conclusion from your own inability to solve a problem you just invented.

It is interesting that you did not address the information problem of socialism. It is still more interesting that neither you nor anyone else has really addressed the incentive problem.

Socialism lacks the incentives for production, and lacks the information required to direct that production in such a way as people's needs are met. The result of this is shortages in even the most basic of goods, bread for example.

The official market is where we see the shortages. A black market is the inevitable result because those employed to produce will see that their interests can be met by diverting goods to a black market, and charging higher prices. Consumers will operate in this market because they know they can get the goods they want.

No - Stalin was the perfect man for Stalinism. Stalinism does not equate to socialism.

Stalinism is simply an attempt to reconcile socialism with reality. It is instructive to note that Stalinist regimes tend to last, North Korea for example, while socialist governments that liberalise soon fade away.

It is instructive to note that Stalinist regimes tend to last, North Korea for example, while socialist governments that liberalise soon fade away.

What it is instructive to note is that many "socialists" (or "communists" or something close to it, at least) democratic regimes existed in human history, but that every time, they didn't last long because they were removed by forced, in a bloodbath, by capitalists.

Paris' Commune, Allende's Chile, Nicaragua, and so many others. Sure, stalinist regimes tend to last longer. Because it's easier to resist a coup attempt or a violent repression when you're running your country with an iron fist. Democracy was never good at winning civil wars. But this has nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". It's BECAUSE capitalists are so reckless, so ready to use the dirtiest tricks, to wash in blood any attempt to build something else, that "socialists" democracy tend to die quickly.

But hope is raising once again from South America. Hugo Chavez is still in power in Venezuela, more supported by his people than ever, despite the coup and murder attempts. Evo Morales is now president of Bolivia. Those new democratic socicialism attempts can change the future, if they manage to resist against US imperalism. Which is, indeed, a far more difficult task than building socialism itself.

Socialism is failing?

Seems nobody remembered to inform Scandinavia.

Scandinavian countries have mixed economies. While they are humongous welfare states, they do have market economies.

Paris' Commune, Allende's Chile, Nicaragua, and so many others. Sure, stalinist regimes tend to last longer. Because it's easier to resist a coup attempt or a violent repression when you're running your country with an iron fist. Democracy was never good at winning civil wars. But this has nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism". It's BECAUSE capitalists are so reckless, so ready to use the dirtiest tricks, to wash in blood any attempt to build something else, that "socialists" democracy tend to die quickly.

Nicaragua under the Sandinistas was no democracy. They killed as many people in their first year of power as Pinochet killed during his 17-year reign. The Sandinistas confiscated virtually all property without confiscation, kept thousands of political prisons, persecuted (and sent to concentration camps) Miskito Indians, and committed unspeakable atrocities against members of the Guardia Nacional and the former government. Dr. Cornelio Hueck, former President of the Congress, was strapped to a table and had his heart cut out, while he was alive. Sandinistas went to the homes of Guardia Nacional members while they were away and killed their families (even children). They sprayed people with gasoline and burned them alive. They stabbed people to death with ice picks, castrated men and stuffed their genitals in their mouth, gouged out eyeballs, decapitated people, and robbed and raped at will. Arguably, the contras were no better, but because the Sandinistas were communists, their atrocities are ignored or played down by the left.

Don't like capitalism? Here's a solution: move to fucking Havana, Cuba.

Democratic socialism cannot be sustained in the long run because of socialism's inevitable economic failures.

As for your Latin American examples, one was elected weeks ago, the other is not democratic, and subsidises socialist idiocy with oil.

In 1999, The constitution was re-written and a new Consitutional Assembly was created, with pro-Chávez representatives taking 120 of 131 seats, and giving him a clear majority. By Augusat of the same year a "judicial state of emergency" was declared, giving Chávez unchecked power to remove judges; later that month a "legislative state of emergency" was declared, leaving a seven man committee in charge of legislative functions; subsequently the Congress was barred from meeting.

...

On 01 February, 2003, Opposition to Chávez moved to have him removed from office, gathering more than three million signatures of private citizens calling for a referendum on whether Chávez should remain in power. After much obstruction by the government, this move failed when the petition was ultimately declared invalid, because the signatures had been gathered prior to Chávez' mid-point in his term.

In August 2004, a second petition was organized, this time with 3,5 million signatures and a referendum was held but almost 60% of the voting population opposed to remove Chávez from office. However, results were later found to have irregularities, with more than 40% of the population not taking part in the vote, despite reports that voters had turned out in record numbers.

...

The Media in Venezuela is largely and overtly against Chávez, with very little mass media supporting him. However there are numerous reports of intimidation of the media by pro Chávez gangs that have been alleged to have issued violent threats against the media that does not support him. Chávez moved to start restrictions on the media with vaguely worded legislation that could allow him to suppress political content, although the initial scope of the law was restrictions on pornographic and violent content.

In mid-March of 2005 Chávez passed legislation further clamping down on the press, by broadening controls on how the press can report articles deemed "disrespectful" or "insulting" of the government. Sentencing for such transgressions ranges between 20 and 40 months incarceration, depending on the gravity of the offense. Moreover laws have been passed against the media, tightening controls on what would be considered slanderous, carrying sentences up to 30 months and what would amount to tens of thousands of US dollars in fines.

Numerous human rights organizations have expressed great concern over the incremental restrictions imposed by the Chávez regime on the Venezuelan media .

...

To solidify his control over the Venezuelan Supreme Court, Chávez passed legislation in May 2003 to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices from 20 to 32 and appointing another 5 vacant posts, giving him a clear majority in the judicial branch of the government. He also allowed for the appointment of 32 reserve justices, all of which are loyal to him. It should also be noted that former justices were forced to resign after several "politically sensitive rulings". Many are very concerned that with the control of the courts, Chavez seems to have consolidated control over the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government.



http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/Rec_Read/Dictator_In_The_Making.htm

http://militaresdemocraticos.surebase.com/desobediencia/en/20021221-01.html

http://militaresdemocraticos.surebase.com/denuncias/en/20021220-16.html

" - Not even if we suppose that they hold that referendum and get 90% of the votes, I will not leave. Forget it. I will not leave."

Chavez on 'Aló Presidente" 24NOV02

"Democratic"? Not a flaming bit of it.

Of course, Chavez has placed Venezuela's economy in free-fall.

http://militaresdemocraticos.surebase.com/articulos/en/20030315-02.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/25/175844.shtml

North Korea hasn't actually changed its system of government since it was founded, nor has it fundamentally changed its economic system, and it is without highly-demanded natural resources to sustain it.

Perhaps you could give us economic arguments that could conclusively show that socialism won't fail economically?

The short and simple answer is: People. No need to go farther than that. Communism would work perfectly if there were no people...
Not completely, if you get 3 or 4 people it will work.

Actually it's math.
># of People= -Communism\Socialism Effectiness

Democratic socialism cannot be sustained in the long run because of socialism's inevitable economic failures.

As for your Latin American examples, one was elected weeks ago, the other is not democratic, and subsidises socialist idiocy with oil.

Your anti-Chavez stances are so pathetic that I wonder why I answer...

Chavez _created_ the recall referendum, and the opposition wanted to suppress it. They _faked_ signatures (many signers were dead, not venezuellian, ...) but Chavez still accepted to run the referendum. He then won with an overwelming majority of 60%, in which _no_ irregularity was found. Chavez accepted international observers, including the Jimmy Carter center (you can hardly call them socialists), who all attested that the election was as clean as ever.

On the media, you are right, the media in Venezuela are nearly all (except the governemental channel) against Chavez, and controlled by the wealthiest people of Venezuela. Chavez never censored the private media, even when they spread plain lies, call to murder him or support a coup attempt (try to call to the murder of the US president, you'll end up in jail quickly).

In the meanwhile, Chavez is creating grassroot democracy, by empowering local citizen (cooperatives, community media, ...) at the detriment of the central governement.

Face it, Chavez is probably one of the most popular and loved leader in the whole world, he did a lot to help his own people (what's wrong with using your natural ressources to educate, feed and provide health care to your people ?), and created one of the most democratic Constitution ever (recall referendum at every level, we didn't see that since Paris' Commune). The opposition is so desperate that they can only rely on murder attempts, violence (unlike some media reported, Chavez never opened fire against opposants, while the anti-Chavez Caracas municipal police did open fire upon Chavez supporters), and coup attempts. With the blessing of world capitalists.

:rolleyes: if it's human nature how could asian nations and American Indian tribes be based on equality?
Well, they weren't. They had chiefs.

P.S. What Asian nations are you talking about? Japan and China? :D

I don't think that Socialism or Communism would fail because of human nature. Its true that people can have a greedy, but we also have a generous side.

A system somewhere between capitalism and socialism would be the best for everyone.

Capitalism and democracy seem to be working pretty well. Democratic Republic also seem to be working well.

Capitalism requires there to be rich and poor. That is whats wrong with it. And Capitalism only 'works' for the rich.

Kilobugya, fact free rants don't cut it.

You also didn't come up with an economic argument which would show that socialism would succeed, and that such success could be sustained.

Capitalism requires there to be rich and poor. That is whats wrong with it. And Capitalism only 'works' for the rich.

I'm not rich, but I'm getting by just fine.

Capitalism and Communism both cause huge problems in the everyday life of most normal people. Although both sides of the ideology battle fantasise about either the super-duper noble investor types of Ayn Rand fiction or the selfless, robust uber-workers of Soviet propaganada, they are wrong. Neither capitalism or communism, in any configuration, can make everybody satisfied and happy and wealthy.

What both systems do very well is turn normal people into boring, unhappy drones. When you are sweating away on a factory floor or fretting 9-5 in some office hell, I don't think it matters whether you're serving the people, the state or yourself. The fact is that life will suck - hard.

Capitalism promotes hard work by making it so that if you do not work hard, you may die or become homeless.
Welfare Socialism promotes hard work less - dole money is often provided - but living on the dole is difficult and unrewarding.
Stalinism/other socialist-spinoff ideologies promote hard work via the coercion of the government.
Communism promotes hard work via vague ideas of altruism and gift-economy lies.

Who here actually LIKES hard work?

Instead of arguing about wealth distribution and who owns the means of production, humanity should focus on solutions to the problem of having to do things we don't want to. Let's try and build large numbers of robots and machines which can manufacture all our food, drugs, cars and other goods for us without remuneration so that everyone can sit around all day and have fun.

Another way to achieve this may be the merciless enslavement of animals and the environment in general and the exploration of genetic engineering and other life-easymaking sciences.

We shouldn't have to work for the good of others, we shouldn't fave to work for the good of the state, and we shouldn't have to work for our own good.

We shouldn't have to work at all.

Kilobugya, fact free rants don't cut it.

Where there a single fact in your own rant ? Only unbacked accusations, most of which having already been disproved tens of times.

You also didn't come up with an economic argument which would show that socialism would succeed, and that such success could be sustained.

Socialism is about working together, not against each other. Socialism is about sharing costs and not duplicating infrastructures, research efforts, ... Socialism is about producing what is socially useful, instead of brain-washing people with advertisings to have them buy stuff they don't need. Socialism is about granting everyone conditions for them to live decently, allowing them to blossom as individuals and to contribute back to the society. Socialism is about taking decisions together, for the common interest, and not selfishly deciding for yourself and not caring about consequences on others - or on the planet itself.

How could that not work better ? But if you want economic theory, I don't have the time to explain it in details right now. But have a look at Nash equilibriums, for example. Or at the works done about asymetry of information. Or the mathemical proof that even in smith-walras model (the best one for capitalism), capitalism is an unstable system. And so on...

Where there a single fact in your own rant ? Only unbacked accusations, most of which having already been disproved tens of times.

No matter how many historical facts you show, no matter how many proven methods you refer to... People like him will never, ever side with reason on this. I learned long ago that it's futile to debate with his kind.

Capitalism requires there to be rich and poor. That is whats wrong with it. And Capitalism only 'works' for the rich.

Oh yes? Incidentally, are the middle classes, concurrent to deserving destrruction at the hands of the dictatorship of the proletarian, a non-entity within capitalism?

Or would we be regurgitating un-erudite, un founded bilge?

My god, I've never seen so much rightist wanking in a single thread in my entire life.

However, the poster above me has pretty much done my job for me, so I really have no need to comment any further. :D

My god, I've never seen so many communist apologist wanking in a single thread in my entire life.

Hey, I too can stand on the sidelines and yap meaninglessly at people. It's fun and productive too, just like the 5 Year Plan!

Socialism does work.
Communism May Not.

Socialism just involves slightly higher taxes for the wealthier and redistribution of wealth :)

Communism... well. same but on a much larger scale. and with guns.

Capitalism and Communism both cause huge problems in the everyday life of most normal people. Although both sides of the ideology battle fantasise about either the super-duper noble investor types of Ayn Rand fiction or the selfless, robust uber-workers of Soviet propaganada, they are wrong. Neither capitalism or communism, in any configuration, can make everybody satisfied and happy and wealthy.

What both systems do very well is turn normal people into boring, unhappy drones. When you are sweating away on a factory floor or fretting 9-5 in some office hell, I don't think it matters whether you're serving the people, the state or yourself. The fact is that life will suck - hard.

Capitalism promotes hard work by making it so that if you do not work hard, you may die or become homeless.
Welfare Socialism promotes hard work less - dole money is often provided - but living on the dole is difficult and unrewarding.
Stalinism/other socialist-spinoff ideologies promote hard work via the coercion of the government.
Communism promotes hard work via vague ideas of altruism and gift-economy lies.

Who here actually LIKES hard work?

Instead of arguing about wealth distribution and who owns the means of production, humanity should focus on solutions to the problem of having to do things we don't want to. Let's try and build large numbers of robots and machines which can manufacture all our food, drugs, cars and other goods for us without remuneration so that everyone can sit around all day and have fun.

Another way to achieve this may be the merciless enslavement of animals and the environment in general and the exploration of genetic engineering and other life-easymaking sciences.

We shouldn't have to work for the good of others, we shouldn't fave to work for the good of the state, and we shouldn't have to work for our own good.

We shouldn't have to work at all.

I believe Marx said that Communism would only come about once Capitalism had produced so much and become so automated that there was plenty of goods to go round so everyone could live in luxury.

I've often thought how the world would be like if we got to a point where we had advanced technology so much that robots did most tasks. Obviously you would not have pure capitalism, as there would simply never be enough jobs to go around. If there's a 70% unemployment rate and the only jobs available you need to be extensively trained for, you can't just tell people that it's their own fault they are starving and they should go get a job.

On the other hand, there'd always be a need for some humans to work. Perhaps enough people would volunteer to do the work without any reward that communism could work, but this wouldn't be until there was a REAL lack of jobs, where only 10% or so of the population needed to work.

I suppose what you'd have to do is have a massive welfare state, where work is voluntary but if you did so you could earn some more money on top of the welfare everyone got given.

We live in a capitalist dictatorship. It is human nature to live communally, we are going against nature by behaving in individualistic manner. Your arguments are flawed, you can try to justify your/the western worlds greed all you like, but what really justifies blatant exploitation in order for a minority few to live nicely?

My god, I've never seen so many communist apologist wanking in a single thread in my entire life.

Hey, I too can stand on the sidelines and yap meaninglessly at people. It's fun and productive too, just like the 5 Year Plan!

I'll just take this one in stride and laugh. :D

Oh yes? Incidentally, are the middle classes, concurrent to deserving destrruction at the hands of the dictatorship of the proletarian, a non-entity within capitalism?

Or would we be regurgitating un-erudite, un founded bilge?

Is un-erudite even a word? I know you like them long and fancy, but could you at least make sure they exist? ;)

I'll just take this one in stride and laugh. :D

Yeeeh. (hides communist membership badge) Those Commies Eh! Heheh..

Yeeeh. (hides communist membership badge) Those Commies Eh! Heheh..

*grabs 12-gauge shotgun and shoots it into the air*

YEEHAAAW! DIE, COMMIES! FREEDOM!!!

*laughs uncontrollably*

I'll just take this one in stride and laugh. :D

Good idea, since we all know that arguing with your kind is futile because people like you never, ever listen to reason. ;)

Good idea, since we all know that arguing with your kind is futile because people like you never, ever listen to reason. ;)

Hehehe.

Capitalism requires there to be rich and poor. That is whats wrong with it. And Capitalism only 'works' for the rich.
Capitalism also guarantees that, while there will always be a 10% most poor people, those 10% will live better and better (just compare the workers' conditions in 1800 with their conditions in 1900 or 1900 with 2000). Communism guarantees that everyone will live the same, forever and ever. This may be fine, initially, but after a while, even the capitalist poor will live better than the equal Communists (in this case, please compare AD 1950 with AD 2000, choosing East and West Germany respectivelly as samples).

I believe Marx said that Communism would only come about once Capitalism had produced so much and become so automated that there was plenty of goods to go round so everyone could live in luxury.

Marxists are always convinced that now is the time, and that capitalism has outlived its usefulness. This isn't the case. The technology is probably there, but human society (socialist, communist and capitalist alike) is still organized so that people do a lot of the work. Marx may have had a point, but I can't stand his followers. They all seem willing to still do loads of work, but for the good of others not themselves (which I find particularly unpaletable).

Plus, I've found that a love of Marxism sometimes goes hand in hand with respect for the environment and animals (although I don't think Marx specifically mentioned this). Communists and socialists often moan about capitalism destroying the planet. How can we expect to live in extreme luxury and comfort if we aren't cruel to animals and careless with the environment? To me, living in luxury means a private vehicle which spews crap into the atmosphere, the meats and dairy products, often GM, of many animals, computers and household appliances made in smoke-spewing factories, leather, furs and clothing from animals and all sorts of other environment-hating goods and services. I refuse to give up any of these.


I've often thought how the world would be like if we got to a point where we had advanced technology so much that robots did most tasks. Obviously you would not have pure capitalism, as there would simply never be enough jobs to go around. If there's a 70% unemployment rate and the only jobs available you need to be extensively trained for, you can't just tell people that it's their own fault they are starving and they should go get a job.

If robot serfs and enslaved animals made our food for us, nobody would have to starve through lack of a job.


On the other hand, there'd always be a need for some humans to work. Perhaps enough people would volunteer to do the work without any reward that communism could work, but this wouldn't be until there was a REAL lack of jobs, where only 10% or so of the population needed to work.

Sure, people will have to think about building robots and catching/modifying animals, but doing so will benefit them as well as everyone else. Whether you're a dopey altruist or a greedy objectivist, helping build the easy no-work-world makes total sense.


I suppose what you'd have to do is have a massive welfare state, where work is voluntary but if you did so you could earn some more money on top of the welfare everyone got given.

That's just a re-hashing of welfare socialism. I believe that the need to never do any hard work ever again would be sufficient remuneration for building a robo-farm or animal-worker-factory. I would work super-hard for ten years if I knew that it would mean I could do whatever I wanted for the rest of my life. Current systems just suggest I work super-hard so that I can stay alive and work some more.

Capitalism and Communism both cause huge problems in the everyday life of most normal people. Although both sides of the ideology battle fantasise about either the super-duper noble investor types of Ayn Rand fiction or the selfless, robust uber-workers of Soviet propaganada, they are wrong. Neither capitalism or communism, in any configuration, can make everybody satisfied and happy and wealthy.

What both systems do very well is turn normal people into boring, unhappy drones. When you are sweating away on a factory floor or fretting 9-5 in some office hell, I don't think it matters whether you're serving the people, the state or yourself. The fact is that life will suck - hard.

Capitalism promotes hard work by making it so that if you do not work hard, you may die or become homeless.
Welfare Socialism promotes hard work less - dole money is often provided - but living on the dole is difficult and unrewarding.
Stalinism/other socialist-spinoff ideologies promote hard work via the coercion of the government.
Communism promotes hard work via vague ideas of altruism and gift-economy lies.

Who here actually LIKES hard work?

Instead of arguing about wealth distribution and who owns the means of production, humanity should focus on solutions to the problem of having to do things we don't want to. Let's try and build large numbers of robots and machines which can manufacture all our food, drugs, cars and other goods for us without remuneration so that everyone can sit around all day and have fun.

Another way to achieve this may be the merciless enslavement of animals and the environment in general and the exploration of genetic engineering and other life-easymaking sciences.

We shouldn't have to work for the good of others, we shouldn't fave to work for the good of the state, and we shouldn't have to work for our own good.

We shouldn't have to work at all.
Actually I believe that level of industrialization can't be achieved under capitalism, because human work is cheaper than robots. Minimum wages and woprking laws in general are required to make work more expensive in order to force the capitalists to industrialize. And when they industrialize, they are actually causing pain to the proletariat. Indeed, they're causing unemployement and over-production, the kind which is causing the recuring crises of capitalism. Today, over-production is the problem. The problem is not to produce but to find consumers to consume. Many products are thrown away in waste because the poors can't buy it, but the capitalists won't give it away. Their interest is to throw it away instead of lowering the price for some people.
I advise to read a nice book from Paul Lafargue : "le droit à la paresse" (translates "the right to lazyness"). Paul Lafargue's uncle was Karl Marx and he was a french politician of the begenning of the 20th century. He was advocating the recognition of the right of lazyness and the week of 20 hours. He was a new kind of marxist and his book is very insightful.

Democratic Socialism may actually be the best form of government for the "little guy", it's not classist (unlike Marxism), and the government's in control of big buisness, creating free health care and things like that. It also keeps fuckers like Verizon from take their worker's pentions.

Socialism is not bad but communism is pure evil (check my main nation page).

We live in a capitalist dictatorship.

Most of us live in semi-capitalist democracies and republics. Where do you live?

It is human nature to live communally, we are going against nature by behaving in individualistic manner.

Human nature is neither to live communally, nor to be individualistic and work for our own benefit. Human nature is to do whatever we want. Do you want to live and work communally? Do you want to live and work for yourself and by yourself? Do you want to live however you want and need to do no work?

Because whatever your gut instinct makes you want to do is human nature. When you show up at work at 8:30, killer-tired and feeling like you want to die, that's human nature talking to you.
When you spend your evenings fretting about tomorrow's workday instead of getting drunk as a lord and charging around in bars like you should be, that's human nature talking. It's telling you "who cares about politics - work sucks however it's done".

Your arguments are flawed, you can try to justify your/the western worlds greed all you like, but what really justifies blatant exploitation in order for a minority few to live nicely?

Nothing, as long as we're talking about people. Blatant exploitation of everything else - technology, animals, nature - is fair game.

Marxists are always convinced that now is the time, and that capitalism has outlived its usefulness. This isn't the case. The technology is probably there, but human society (socialist, communist and capitalist alike) is still organized so that people do a lot of the work. Marx may have had a point, but I can't stand his followers. They all seem willing to still do loads of work, but for the good of others not themselves (which I find particularly unpaletable).
There is a Volkswagen factory in Germany with no light. There are no light in the factory because the machines can work in the dark and don't need light and there are only machines in this factory. On the other hand, Germany has close to 12% unemployment, even with very tight working limits. Most Volkswagen's worker are doing useless jobs like investing money in the stock market, industrial spying and protecting patents/hiding their research. There are maybe less than 10% of the workers doing useful work there.

Actually I believe that level of industrialization can't be achieved under capitalism, because human work is cheaper than robots. Minimum wages and woprking laws in general are required to make work more expensive in order to force the capitalists to industrialize.

Not strictly true. If this were the case, the industrial revolution would never have happened (and it did not happen because of minimum wage laws - I am sure you will be the first to admit that the pioneers of industrial work earned peanuts and lived in abject poverty while the government did nothing). It is cheaper overall to build a robotic loom which can produces ten times as much material in half the time which it normally takes a person with a needle.
It is man's ability to use complex tools which makes him evolutionarily "wealthy".


And when they industrialize, they are actually causing pain to the proletariat. Indeed, they're causing unemployement and over-production, the kind which is causing the recuring crises of capitalism.

Regarding unemployment you're spot on. Luddites were right - because machines are ultimately cheaper and easier to maintain than people, they replace the hundreds of slaving human hands which once did their now easy jobs.


Today, over-production is the problem. The problem is not to produce but to find consumers to consume. Many products are thrown away in waste because the poors can't buy it, but the capitalists won't give it away.

You overstate the problem of over-production. Non-production is ALWAYS cheaper than production. A capitalist with any sense will not produce vastly more than he can sell - if he spends too much wealth producing and doesn't sell his product, he will eventually fail to break even and economically "die out". Over and under production happen a bit, but accurate prediction of how much product will be sold goes on all the time in modern economics. Here you are just plain incorrect.

Their interest is to throw it away instead of lowering the price for some people

I like some of your ideas, but this defies the very simplest of economics. Consider that you are a man or company with 100 units of product to sell. It is ALWAYS in your better interest to exchange them for SOME MONEY than NO MONEY. This isn't even economics, it's primary school mathematics. 100 toasters sold for £0.10 each yields a far greater profit than 100 toasters thrown away with no remuneration.


I advise to read a nice book from Paul Lafargue : "le droit à la paresse" (translates "the right to lazyness"). Paul Lafargue's uncle was Karl Marx and he was a french politician of the begenning of the 20th century.

I'll check it out.

He was advocating the recognition of the right of lazyness and the week of 20 hours.

20 hours per week is too much work. :P

Communism only works with a voluntary populace.

Capitalism is able to oppress its involuntary population.

Communism only works with a voluntary populace.

Capitalism is able to oppress its involuntary population.

Communism and capitalism are both evil but communism is most evil thing in the world ever.

Explain how (theoretical) voluntary communism comes to be evil.

Explain how (theoretical) voluntary communism comes to be evil.

Communism is pure evil period. Don't get me wrong though, capitalism is evil too. Just not as evil.

The epitome of logic.

Explain how (theoretical) voluntary communism comes to be evil.
Voluntary communism does not exist. For it to work, everybody should agree to it, which can never happen. And then you can either choose not to form a Communist society, or to force the unwilling to be part of such a society. That's the problem.

It just is okay?

There is a Volkswagen factory in Germany with no light. There are no light in the factory because the machines can work in the dark and don't need light and there are only machines in this factory. On the other hand, Germany has close to 12% unemployment, even with very tight working limits. Most Volkswagen's worker are doing useless jobs like investing money in the stock market, industrial spying and protecting patents/hiding their research. There are maybe less than 10% of the workers doing useful work there.

Ok, you're right. But the solution is NOT to give the people their jobs back. Every factory in the world should be like that, and people should somehow reap the benefits. I don't like the idea of the government taking over and giving it to us or "the people" spontaneously going and grabbing it, neither of those work.

The government is more nasty than the corporations. If they controlled the factory, they might change it so the robots make "bio-friendly cars" or some environment/healthy living rubbish like that.

If people go and seize it on their own the world will doubtless descend into right-wing anarchy, which, while funner than today's work-loving society of boredom and hardship, is far from ideal or sustainable.

Note the use of the word theoretical. A completely voluntary communist state could only exist if it could dump its capitalists onto a neighbour.

Note the use of the word theoretical. A completely voluntary communist state could only exist if it could dump its capitalists onto a neighbour.

Communism is evil NO MATTER WHAT. It has killed millions, maybe billions.

Communism is evil NO MATTER WHAT. It has killed millions, maybe billions.
1) Millions, not billions.
2) You'll laugh when I say this but... that wasn't communism.

1) Millions, not billions.
2) You'll laugh when I say this but... that wasn't communism.

Well they said they were communists and they trying to reach communism so it was communism. And yes, maybe billions. Capitalism has killed 10,000-100,000, not millions or billions like communism. Socialism has never killed anyone.

Note the use of the word theoretical. A completely voluntary communist state could only exist if it could dump its capitalists onto a neighbour.

That's not voluntary work. The rule is "work hard or leave the country".

Well they said they were communists and they trying to reach communism so it was communism.I could call myself a chicken and be no more of a chicken than you.

Note the use of the word theoretical. A completely voluntary communist state could only exist if it could dump its capitalists onto a neighbour.
So, are we talking about forced deportations now? But of course, that's not evil. If that's the only way to achieve Communism, it's a just and noble thing to do. :p

I could call myself a chicken and be no more of a chicken than you.

But they were trying to make communism. That dictatorship of the proletariat shit kills millions or billions while trying to make communism. To reach communism and make it work you got to kill alot of people. That's why it's evil.

But they were trying to make communism. That dictatorship of the proletariat shit kills millions or billions while trying to make communism. To reach communism and make it work you got to kill alot of people. That's why it's evil.

Well said that's why communism doesn't work, because in most cases it's synomous with totalitarianism

So, are we talking about forced deportations now? But of course, that's not evil. If that's the only way to achieve Communism, it's a just and noble thing to do. :p
You clearly don't understand our reasons, or you disagree vehemently: you will become a criminal after the revolution, please leave now and never come back, or stay and play by the rules.
Capitalism has never done but this: can I buy that? - No- *bang*bang*

So, are we talking about forced deportations now? But of course, that's not evil. If that's the only way to achieve Communism, it's a just and noble thing to do.I don't imagine many capitalists would much want to live in a communist state. It would be mutually beneficial.

As for totalitarianism, dictatorship, etc. etc. you have only to look at the UDCP.

I don't imagine many capitalists would much want to live in a communist state. It would be mutually beneficial.

As for totalitarianism, dictatorship, etc. etc. you have only to look at the UDCP.

What the heck is the UDCP?

You clearly don't understand our reasons, or you disagree vehemently: you will become a criminal after the revolution, please leave now and never come back, or stay and play by the rules.
Capitalism has never done but this: can I buy that? - No- *bang*bang*
I don't imagine many capitalists would much want to live in a communist state. It would be mutually beneficial
Guys, I can't believe it! :eek: You are really saying that forced deportations are OK?

Edit: That's exactly the attitude which lead to the apparition of the Communist dictatorships. :(

Guys, I can't believe it! :eek: You are really saying that forced deportations are OK?
Edit: That's exactly the attitude which lead to the apparition of the Communist dictatorships. :(
When you put people in prison is it any better than a deportation? And capitalist countries are actually "deporting" 70% (rough guess) of the world outside their borders to mantain their economic supremacy, while communist states accept everyone.
Just thank those nukes.

Not strictly true. If this were the case, the industrial revolution would never have happened (and it did not happen because of minimum wage laws - I am sure you will be the first to admit that the pioneers of industrial work earned peanuts and lived in abject poverty while the government did nothing). It is cheaper overall to build a robotic loom which can produces ten times as much material in half the time which it normally takes a person with a needle.
It is man's ability to use complex tools which makes him evolutionarily "wealthy".This was during the maturing stage of capitalism. Nowadays, the market is mature in many fields. The train system for instance. The trend is to downsize the number of lines and to focus on highly populated areas where there is most money to be done because they can't afford to maintain lines for too few people.
Regarding unemployment you're spot on. Luddites were right - because machines are ultimately cheaper and easier to maintain than people, they replace the hundreds of slaving human hands which once did their now easy jobs.Well I believe that's because work is expensive. They're not industrializing that much in sweatshops.
You overstate the problem of over-production. Non-production is ALWAYS cheaper than production. A capitalist with any sense will not produce vastly more than he can sell - if he spends too much wealth producing and doesn't sell his product, he will eventually fail to break even and economically "die out". Over and under production happen a bit, but accurate prediction of how much product will be sold goes on all the time in modern economics. Here you are just plain incorrect.

I like some of your ideas, but this defies the very simplest of economics. Consider that you are a man or company with 100 units of product to sell. It is ALWAYS in your better interest to exchange them for SOME MONEY than NO MONEY. This isn't even economics, it's primary school mathematics. 100 toasters sold for £0.10 each yields a far greater profit than 100 toasters thrown away with no remuneration.
The problem is that when you sell a product at £0.10, people expect to pay £0.10. You can't sell it at £100 to some and £0.10 to other people. If you sold it £0.10, people wouldn't buy it at £100. So, if you make 100 toasters and 50 people are ready to pay £100, while 50 people only have £0.10, you will send 50 units and throw the rest away, instead of lowering the price to £0.10. And as your producing factory is located in a place where you only give £0.10 in exchange for their work, your workers will never be able to afford your toasters. You will probably have to force people with money and who don't need it to buy your remaining toasters any way you can but you will never give it at a lower price because you want to sell the next generation toaster for £100.

Putting every communist in jail would do a lot for world peace.

When you put people in prison is it any better than a deportation? And capitalist countries are actually "deporting" 70% (rough guess) of the world outside their borders to mantain their economic supremacy, while communist states accept everyone.
Just thank those nukes.
How can I deport somebody who hasn't been born in my country and doesn't live in it? Let me put it this way: I'm in my house, and you throw me out; I'm in my house, and I don't let strangers inside. Do you see a difference between the two statements?

Nothing of worth.


Explain why? As far as I can see, that would be the crux of the matter. hard to see anything of more 'worth' to the debate.


Nonsense. Every attempt to do such a thing has resulted in failure.


I was not under the impression that the US had actively tried to set out to feed it's entire population using only internal sources. Well... not in recent history, if even then.


Are you saying it does not advantage one to have meat, bread, and drink?


No. That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying that the advantage favours the sellers in a food market. People need to eat, and, if they get hungry enough they HAVE to pay whatever the merchant charges.


Trading is self-interest. As for duty, it is self-interest in a roundabout way.


I'd disagree on the duty thing... did you never 'serve'? And, trading CAN be self-interest.

You have an uncanny knack for saying that dogs are tables.


Yes, it does.


Rather than a blanket refutation... how about showing me the source that defines "socialism" as "obtaining cooperation by force"?

At the moment, you have hollow rhetoric, apparently unsupported by any hinderance of fact.


Rubbish.


Again with the blanket refutations, and little or nothing to support them. It is entrely possible for a socialist society to exist for an extended period of time without the threat of force.

If you have reason to believe this to be untrue, what is your reasoning? 'Communal living' is not a new phenomenon, and is usually a product of a convivial atmospere, rather than one of despotism.


First: There is no real difference. Socialism cannot survive without a state.


Not even vaguely true. As I said... you are confusing socialism with Statism. A fairly simple illustration to make a liar of your argument would be a socialist anarchy.


Second: Of course a black market is determined by economic self-interest. People only go into the black market because they think it will get them what they need/want. There is no other reason for it.

Socialism tends to create the need for a black market, and it is usually the only thing that works.


There are glimmers of truth, but you miss the point. Self-interest in this case, stems from shortage. If everyone has a full belly, and all materials are shared collectively, there is no logic to a black-market.

It's when the bellies aren't full that the problems arise.

And that's no new thing, or peculiar only to communist states. "Bread and Circuses".


You are therefore saying that the peaceful persuit of economic self-interest is a crime.


No... actually I didn't say that at all.


It is interesting that you did not address the information problem of socialism. It is still more interesting that neither you nor anyone else has really addressed the incentive problem.

Socialism lacks the incentives for production, and lacks the information required to direct that production in such a way as people's needs are met. The result of this is shortages in even the most basic of goods, bread for example.

The official market is where we see the shortages. A black market is the inevitable result because those employed to produce will see that their interests can be met by diverting goods to a black market, and charging higher prices. Consumers will operate in this market because they know they can get the goods they want.


What is the problem you perceive regarding information? I have no way to respond to the specifics of your thorny debate, if, for all I know, you are trying to incite me to fight another of your Strawmen.

As far as I can tell, you are talking about red tape... which is no more a characteristic of communism than it is of capitalism... and is dealt with in much the same way in either case. You delegate, you localise, you devolve.


Incentives? How is that a problem? Once again - you attempt to apply capitalist mindsets to communist systems. Will the worker not farm his land, if he doesn't get rich? The historical 'commons' of England imply that , yes, he will. For the simple reason that, if you don't work, you don't eat.


Stalinism is simply an attempt to reconcile socialism with reality. It is instructive to note that Stalinist regimes tend to last, North Korea for example, while socialist governments that liberalise soon fade away.

There has only been one 'Stalinist' regime. Stalin was not an attempt to make socialism palatable to the real world... Stalin was power hungry and ruthless, and got a break (well, made a break).

He is no more 'indicative' of socialism, than Nixon was of capitalism. You are confusing cults of personality, with the entire structure.

Well they said they were communists and they trying to reach communism so it was communism. And yes, maybe billions. Capitalism has killed 10,000-100,000, not millions or billions like communism. Socialism has never killed anyone.

That isen't completely right:
capitalism has killed more than 100,000 people,think about the poor people all the poor people are killed by capitalism.Every winter there are people who haven't got enough money beacouse the rent is always higher.And thats all teh foult of those capitalistic landlords.And we're licing in a capitalistic world much longer than tere where communistic countries.

And no communism hasen't killed billions of people do you ever realise how mush that is? That's the whole of china thats all death because of communism.
And that's just one billion.That's just ridiculous.
Remember WW|| has killed only 5million people.

while communist states accept everyone.
Funny, I don't see too many people accepting their hospitality. I wonder why?

Don't like capitalism? Here's a solution: move to fucking Havana, Cuba.

Hell yes. Why make the world a better place. Those doctors? Don't like germs? F$#k off to Iceland... Those children that don't like pedophiles? F$%k off to somewhere else...

It could be argued that the philanthro[pic thing to do, would be to address the issue, rather than hide from it, and hope it goes away.

Remember WW|| has killed only 5million people.
Ummm, what war are you talking about? If it's WW2, you should 'upgrade' your figures just a bit.

I'm not rich, but I'm getting by just fine.

That might depend on what you consider rich... something like a quarter of the US population lives below the alleged required wage bracket.

Rich is relative.

That might depend on what you consider rich... something like a quarter of the US population lives below the alleged required wage bracket.

Rich is relative.
Exactly. A North Korean would consider that quarter rich. Down with the oppressors! :p

Consider that you are a man or company with 100 units of product to sell. It is ALWAYS in your better interest to exchange them for SOME MONEY than NO MONEY. This isn't even economics, it's primary school mathematics. 100 toasters sold for £0.10 each yields a far greater profit than 100 toasters thrown away with no remuneration.

i've actually worked at a store where part of my job was to destroy moderately imperfect goods. like sets of dishes with one cracked plate. even though between the five sets i would destroy at a time they could easily get 4 complete sets to sell. or they could sell it at a discount. or they could give the shit away rather than have me destroy it. but they don't do that. and from what i understand, this is rather standard practice pretty much everywhere.

and then there are the grocery stores that lock their dumpsters explicitly to prevent people from helping themselves to free food...

20 hours per week is too much work. :P

indeed

Communism only works with a voluntary populace.

Capitalism is able to oppress its involuntary population.

Not so much 'oppress'.... more 'starve'.

Communism and capitalism are both evil but communism is most evil thing in the world ever.

Not more evil than Tellytubbies.

The problem is that when you sell a product at £0.10, people expect to pay £0.10. You can't sell it at £100 to some and £0.10 to other people. If you sold it £0.10, people wouldn't buy it at £100. So, if you make 100 toasters and 50 people are ready to pay £100, while 50 people only have £0.10, you will send 50 units and throw the rest away, instead of lowering the price to £0.10. And as your producing factory is located in a place where you only give £0.10 in exchange for their work, your workers will never be able to afford your toasters. You will probably have to force people with money and who don't need it to buy your remaining toasters any way you can but you will never give it at a lower price because you want to sell the next generation toaster for £100.

My example assumed that a capitalist had sold all the toasters he could at a high price (let's say £100), but that he had overproduced and the only toasterless people were the ones who didn't have £100. Lowering the price to £50 or even £0.10 makes sense if he wants to sell the rest of his stock. This DOES happen all the time in modern markets. New products are almost always put into markets at extortionate prices so that rich idiots buy them, and gradually reduced in price until other areas of society buy them.

Playstations and other video game malarky used to be very expensive, but now they're very cheap (the newer models are still expensive, but in a couple of years they too will be affordable, not because they are cheaper to build, but because nobody else is willing to pay so much for them).

How can I deport somebody who hasn't been born in my country and doesn't live in it? Let me put it this way: I'm in my house, and you throw me out; I'm in my house, and I don't let strangers inside. Do you see a difference between the two statements?
Yes, you kicked native indian arses and then fought english and then your compatriots for your house, you say it's the most beautiful but don't want anyone in. What would you do if Senegal wanted to be annexxed to the US?
I tell you capitalism only benefits the rich, else you'd have plenty of room to take people in your country. But yeah, I was begging the question...

i've actually worked at a store where part of my job was to destroy moderately imperfect goods. like sets of dishes with one cracked plate. even though between the five sets i would destroy at a time they could easily get 4 complete sets to sell. or they could sell it at a discount. or they could give the shit away rather than have me destroy it. but they don't do that. and from what i understand, this is rather standard practice pretty much everywhere.

This is probably, from the capitalist viewpoint, because an assortment of low quality goods creates a bad impression of the store and discourages shoppers.


and then there are the grocery stores that lock their dumpsters explicitly to prevent people from helping themselves to free food...


Same deal. Forraging tramps don't make your business look at all professional. There could also be some far-fetched health and safety reason. Food-poisoned hobo corpses out the back are probably even worse for business than alive hobos.

(BTW, I'm not saying this is right, I'm explaining why it makes business sense)

Yes, you kicked native indian arses and then fought english and then your compatriots for your house, you say it's the most beautiful but don't want anyone in. What would you do if Senegal wanted to be annexxed to the US?
I tell you capitalism only benefits the rich, else you'd have plenty of room to take people in your country. But yeah, I was begging the question...
I was also begging for your comment. :D Let's see... Dracula, Vlad Tepes, Transylvania, Nadia Comaneci. Ring a bell? If I were the president of Romania, I'd declare war on the US. Maybe they'd annex us. :D

Seriously, what you propose would be disastrous for Senegal's economy. Now that Romania is going to join the EU, the one thing people are most worried about is that our economy will not be competitive enough for the European market. If Senegal were annexed by the US, I can guarantee you their economy would collapse within weeks.

Hell yes. Why make the world a better place. Those doctors? Don't like germs? F$#k off to Iceland... Those children that don't like pedophiles? F$%k off to somewhere else...

It could be argued that the philanthro[pic thing to do, would be to address the issue, rather than hide from it, and hope it goes away.

If a tiny, inconsequential minority of the population wants economic stagnation, that's their problem. We don't want them fucking up our economy.

If a tiny, inconsequential minority of the population wants economic stagnation, that's their problem. We don't want them fucking up our economy.

Like those children, who we don't want polluting the mainstream right to abuse infants?

You are making a ridiculous statement... you are saying that communism/socialism must equal economic stagnation... but apprently can't see that the one becomes irrelevent in the face of the other.

I suspect you must be pretty out of touch already, of course, if you haven't the sneaking suspicion that the economy is already more than a little bent.

I was also begging for your comment. :D Let's see... Dracula, Vlad Tepes, Transylvania, Nadia Comaneci. Ring a bell? If I were the president of Romania, I'd declare war on the US. Maybe they'd annex us. :D

Seriously, what you propose would be disastrous for Senegal's economy. Now that Romania is going to join the EU, the one thing people are most worried about is that our economy will not be competitive enough for the European market. If Senegal were annexed by the US, I can guarantee you their economy would collapse within weeks.
So what you propose is to take a loan to get the economy started, wait a few years, a decade, some more, then face the fact that you can't compete with anyone anyway, even treating your work force as slave animals, and you'll need more debts...? We already have a global economy, the mistakes of socialism have been corrected, the mistakes of capitalism are for all to see.

So what you propose is to take a loan to get the economy started, wait a few years, a decade, some more, then face the fact that you can't compete with anyone anyway, even treating your work force as slave animals, and you'll need more debts...?I don't have to propose anything. They're progressing by themselves. Despite what you see on TV, most of Africa is not represented by tribespeople, illiterate starving peasants or poor immigrants. Having talked to Africans myself (Camerounese, not Senegalese), I can tell you they actually feel offended by such conceptions.
In January 1994, Senegal undertook a bold and ambitious economic reform program with the support of the international donor community. This reform began with a 50% devaluation of Senegal's currency, the CFA franc, which was linked at a fixed rate to the French franc. Government price controls and subsidies have been steadily dismantled. After seeing its economy contract by 2.1% in 1993, Senegal made an important turnaround, thanks to the reform program, with real growth in GDP averaging over 5% annually during 1995-2004. Annual inflation had been pushed down to the low single digits. As a member of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU), Senegal is working toward greater regional integration with a unified external tariff and a more stable monetary policy.

GDP - real growth rate: 6.1% (2005 est.)

Investment (gross fixed): 22.4% of GDP (2005 est.)

We already have a global economy, the mistakes of socialism have been corrected, the mistakes of capitalism are for all to see.
I told you I'm Romanian. How can you say such BS? Before WW2, Romania was in a better situation than Greece or Portugal. Now we're waaay behind them. I wouldn't call that 'problem corrected'.

=A fact-free statement.
What I had in mind here was the 4 million Cubans who took part in armed military exercises last year. That's about 35% of the population. It'd be as if 100 million Americans--civilians mostly--were issued automatic weapons by the government so they could take prepare to fight terrorists ... but the U.S. government doesn't organize actions like that, because it fears its citizens too much.


=It became an engine of oppression decades ago. All of socialism is oppression.
Empty rhetoric. If the Cubans agreed with you, the millions of Cubans armed with assault rifles, grenades, and land mines by their government would've overthrown it.

=People get 30 years gaol for that.
When Tomas Alea Gutierrez got his Academy Award, he said he was glad to live in Cuba where he had freedom of expression. Perhaps you are thinking of the 'dissidents' who got jail terms of approximately this length recently for cooperating with U.S. intelligence to organize terrorist attacks against Cuban civilians.

What I had in mind here was the 4 million Cubans who took part in armed military exercises last year. That's about 35% of the population. It'd be as if 100 million Americans--civilians mostly--were issued automatic weapons by the government so they could take prepare to fight terrorists ... but the U.S. government doesn't organize actions like that, because it fears its citizens too much.
Huge numbers of Romanian citizens used to be gathered for demonstrations during the Communist period (my parents included), but few - if any - were really supporting what they were demonstrating for. This makes me very skeptical when I watch large scale demonstrations taking place in countries led by a dictator.

When Tomas Alea Gutierrez got his Academy Award, he said he was glad to live in Cuba where he had freedom of expression. Perhaps you are thinking of the 'dissidents' who got jail terms of approximately this length recently for cooperating with U.S. intelligence to organize terrorist attacks against Cuban civilians.

Was his family still in Cuba when he said that?

What I had in mind here was the 4 million Cubans who took part in armed military exercises last year. That's about 35% of the population. It'd be as if 100 million Americans--civilians mostly--were issued automatic weapons by the government so they could take prepare to fight terrorists ... but the U.S. government doesn't organize actions like that, because it fears its citizens too much.

Or possibly, just entirely tenably, it would be unfeasible in a state as extensive and populous as the United States, sicne it would neccessitate the mobilistation, arming and training of, as you so conjecturally contend, 100 million citizens, who would accordingly abandon their vocations, engendering an economic collapse. Furthermore, the logistics required for the mobilistation of 100 million individuals would cripple the United States, or, for that matter, any state, no transport network could support such a requirement, nor coukld any nutrition or industrial infrastructure.

Moreover, given the staunch jingoism of the majority of the United States army, why on earth do you percieve a mass conscription as dissolving such jingoism into revolutionary sentiment?


Empty rhetoric. If the Cubans agreed with you, the millions of Cubans armed with assault rifles, grenades, and land mines by their government would've overthrown it.

No. Shcokingly enough not every mobilised fellow who feels any antipathy towards his regime mobilises the proletariat and imposes himself as leader ina swathe of blood. The precedent imparted by all communist states, notably the USSR, illustrates that the fear of informants, and compelled loyalty, engender apathy amongst any counter-revolutionaries.

I don't have to propose anything. They're progressing by themselves.
Me neither, go on by yourself. Cya

Me neither, go on by yourself. Cya
That's a very original way to end a losing debate. Bye!

You know, just because someone gets bored with talking to you doesn't mean you've won. That's kind of like technically winning a fight if your opponent falls asleep.

You know, just because someone gets bored with talking to you doesn't mean you've won. That's kind of like technically winning a fight if your opponent falls asleep.
*yawn* You win.

This is probably, from the capitalist viewpoint, because an assortment of low quality goods creates a bad impression of the store and discourages shoppers.

Same deal. Forraging tramps don't make your business look at all professional. There could also be some far-fetched health and safety reason. Food-poisoned hobo corpses out the back are probably even worse for business than alive hobos.

(BTW, I'm not saying this is right, I'm explaining why it makes business sense)

of course. but in other words, they explicitly hold that it makes them more money to regualrly waste things than not. therefore, it is not always the case that some money for a product is better than none, and it is certainly not always the case that some use of a product is better than none.

Or possibly, just entirely tenably, it would be unfeasible in a state as extensive and populous as the United States, sicne it would neccessitate the mobilistation, arming and training of, as you so conjecturally contend, 100 million citizens, who would accordingly abandon their vocations, engendering an economic collapse. Furthermore, the logistics required for the mobilistation of 100 million individuals would cripple the United States, or, for that matter, any state, no transport network could support such a requirement, nor coukld any nutrition or industrial infrastructure.

Moreover, given the staunch jingoism of the majority of the United States army, why on earth do you percieve a mass conscription as dissolving such jingoism into revolutionary sentiment?

No. Shcokingly enough not every mobilised fellow who feels any antipathy towards his regime mobilises the proletariat and imposes himself as leader ina swathe of blood. The precedent imparted by all communist states, notably the USSR, illustrates that the fear of informants, and compelled loyalty, engender apathy amongst any counter-revolutionaries.

Granted, 100 million are a lot more to mobilize than 4 million--but Cuba, a poor country--does have the infrastructure in place to mobilize 35% of its population, which the U.S. does not. Cuba's unemployment rate is about the same as the U.S.'s, but it makes national defense a priority (because it has to--it is under siege).

Well, the reason conscription was abolished in the U.S. following the Vietnam War was that it indeed led to revolutionary sentiment and action, and a breakdown in the effectiveness of the military. The effectiveness of Cuba's military, however, has been demonstrated in action.

Certainly, all states rule by a combination of fear, physical compulsion, and voluntary support--Cuba included. What is democracy but the forcible imposition of the will of the majority on the minority?

Bogmihia--To answer your question: yes, Alea's family was still in Cuba when he said that. My question to you is: did Romania's government organize coordinated military exercises by millions of people with weapons in hand?

You are missing the point, which is that whether or not it exists, it is not useful in terms of building an economic system.

the fact that all economic systems until very recently were built on such terms doesn't matter?

A system somewhere between capitalism and socialism would be the best for everyone.

Like Meritotic forms of socity.

Me neither, go on by yourself. Cya
Is this a double post or what? It's been 13 minutes since your previous identical post. Anyway, it's almost 11 PM, so I'm going to sleep. Good night (or good day).

Meh, weird people :p

Where I'm from we call our country both capitalist and socialist. I think the capitalist stuffs is quite clear, free market and stuffs.

And the socialist stuffs:
over 50% income tax (the bastards :p)
this huge amount of revenue flows to:
- nearly free education (even uni, you should see my huge study grant :D, approx 3500 euro a year, not to mention they also subsidise my housing :p, anyways, it's enough to pay all the bills ^_^)
- worker's unions (actually they have too much power here :p)
- money for the jobless (not much, but enough to live on)
- minimum living wage (money for jobless is more but it requires you to have worked 6 months in the past ... years, dunno how much exactly :p, you deteriorate to minimum wage if you never work anyway).
- subsidised health care: like 90% of my dental bills get refunded :D
Probably some other stuffs as well which don't really affect me so I don't know about them :p. Anyway, that's what I always considered socialism and not some weird extreme end like communism.

Granted, 100 million are a lot more to mobilize than 4 million--but Cuba, a poor country--does have the infrastructure in place to mobilize 35% of its population, which the U.S. does not. Cuba's unemployment rate is about the same as the U.S.'s, but it makes national defense a priority (because it has to--it is under siege).

Well, the reason conscription was abolished in the U.S. following the Vietnam War was that it indeed led to revolutionary sentiment and action, and a breakdown in the effectiveness of the military. The effectiveness of Cuba's military, however, has been demonstrated in action.

Certainly, all states rule by a combination of fear, physical compulsion, and voluntary support--Cuba included. What is democracy but the forcible imposition of the will of the majority on the minority?

Bogmihia--To answer your question: yes, Alea's family was still in Cuba when he said that. My question to you is: did Romania's government organize coordinated military exercises by millions of people with weapons in hand?

The USA, as I have already contended, is simply far larger in expanse than Cuba, whilst the necessity for the moblisation of 100 million individuals is unlikely to occur.

Democracy, the etymology and history implies the hegemony of the people. Try studying Atheninan democracy.

most of you seem to have a good idea of the forms of goverment but you are all still making the same basic mistakes as usual goverments are ment ot be taken as such sides like the west is mostly capitalist but not tottaly it is mixed with other forms of goverment but it's still mostly captialist so that means that it can still be called that without haveing to explain all the other forms of goverment it takes it wich is a large part of why it works so well is becuase it is so mixed it takes well working parts of many kinds and puts it all togeather wich is one reason why Communisim has faild is because it trys to be strictly communisim, and no goverment can stay around very long with out changeing or adapting new ways thats why rome worked so well is beucase part of the time it was an senate, and the other part of the time it was a dictatorship, and ther other part was an Empire it chanhed to adapt to the current needs of the people or the Roman Empire so in ther end goverment should have no name it should just be run the way it needs to be run wich is impossable beucase one person will always think that there way is better then anyone eles and it jsut so happens that that person has power if the country most of the time so I think that a true goverment can never exist not just Communisim and socalism.

most of you seem to have a good idea of the forms of goverment but you are all still making the same basic mistakes as usual goverments are ment ot be taken as such sides like the west is mostly capitalist but not tottaly it is mixed with other forms of goverment but it's still mostly captialist so that means that it can still be called that without haveing to explain all the other forms of goverment it takes it wich is a large part of why it works so well is becuase it is so mixed it takes well working parts of many kinds and puts it all togeather wich is one reason why Communisim has faild is because it trys to be strictly communisim, and no goverment can stay around very long with out changeing or adapting new ways thats why rome worked so well is beucase part of the time it was an senate, and the other part of the time it was a dictatorship, and ther other part was an Empire it chanhed to adapt to the current needs of the people or the Roman Empire so in ther end goverment should have no name it should just be run the way it needs to be run wich is impossable beucase one person will always think that there way is better then anyone eles and it jsut so happens that that person has power if the country most of the time so I think that a true goverment can never exist not just Communisim and socalism.

I do apologise but what on earth is wrong with your punctuatation facilities? Or spelling for that matter?

My question to you is: did Romania's government organize coordinated military exercises by millions of people with weapons in hand?
My last post for today(really! :)).

No, just hundreads of thousands (the regular army). However, the people in the Romanian army didn't have a special love for the Communist regime (quite the contrary, like most Romanians) and yet they didn't revolt. For a revolt, you need leaders, and it's those leaders who are most targeted by a dictatorship. You don't understand what an opressive regime can do to you, mentally. Neither do I, first hand (I was only seven in 1989), but I have talked to older people and I know from them.

You asked for it, but I have to sleep -_-
I don't have to propose anything. They're progressing by themselves. Despite what you see on TV, most of Africa is not represented by tribespeople, illiterate starving peasants or poor immigrants. Having talked to Africans myself (Camerounese, not Senegalese), I can tell you they actually feel offended by such conceptions.
They won't stand a chance in the global market unless they emigrate (capitalist way) or get support from the outside (socialist way).

I told you I'm Romanian. How can you say such BS? Before WW2, Romania was in a better situation than Greece or Portugal. Now we're waaay behind them. I wouldn't call that 'problem corrected'.
When the EU will subsidize your economy try not to think it's a fair trade for your loyalty and be more grateful.

Empty rhetoric. If the Cubans agreed with you, the millions of Cubans armed with assault rifles, grenades, and land mines by their government would've overthrown it.


Why do thousands of Cubans per year try and escape to the USA in haphazard craft, and why does their wonderful government try and stop them? If Cubans are so able to stand up to their government, why do they a) want to leave in the first place and b) not use their "millions of arms" that they have to make the government give them the right to emigrate? Why were so many mentally and physically fit Cubans so eager to get aboard the Mariel boat lift in 1980 (which was predominantly designed to rescue the mentally ill), and why in 1994 did 30,000 Cubans try, mostly unsuccessfully to run away on rafts?

How could such a great country inspire so many to risk their lives and BUILD RAFTS TO ESCAPE? If Cubans have the ability to overthrow their government and make their leader give them rights, why the exodus? Do they cobble together unsafe rafts and threaten their lives so they can run from the government for fun?

When the people of your country have to build rafts so they can run away, it is a sign that there is something very wrong.

How could such a great country inspire so many to risk their lives and BUILD RAFTS TO ESCAPE?

by requiring that everyone read "the adventures of huckleberry finn"in school, probably.

And look at the millions that AREN'T building rafts and trying to escape. And look at Mexico, with its capitalistic democracy. The people there enjoy their freedom so much that they go to the United States by the millions.

And look at the millions that AREN'T building rafts and trying to escape.

Ok, but check out the USA, the UK, etc. NONE OF US ARE BUILDING RAFTS TO ESCAPE. People are allowed to leave.

And look at Mexico, with its capitalistic democracy. The people there enjoy their freedom so much that they go to the United States by the millions.

As far as I understand it, the Mexican government is (or has been until very recently) corrupt from head to toe. My exact Mexican history isn't too hot, but as recently as 20 years ago, even banking was nationalised. Mexico is hardly a perfect example of democracy OR capitalism.

Anyway, my point was not to defend capitalism necessarily. Maybe private Mexican market economics IS ruining the lives of a gazillion Mexicans. I wasn't saying capitalism was right, I was saying the Cuban government was wrong.

I will keep this short, sweet, and to the point. The reason Communism and Socialism contiune to fail is because of various reason. However, I will just hit on the main one.

Power- People crave power. It's human nature for us to want to be at the highest level of authority in our field. There will always be rulers, President, Dicatators etc. These political ideology goes against this simple human nature functions.

Greed- Let's face it, unless you know the person personally, or you are looking for something in return, you're less apt to help your fellow man. Not to say that people don't help fellow strangers, it's just that it happens alot less. Once again it's human nature. It's human nature for us to look out for our "pack" first and foremoth and then other packs when we feel like it. These political ideology try to force everyone to work together, to share, to divide up our reasources, etc. For the better of humanity. Let's face it, the human species aren't communial. We are indiviualist.

Also, it's human nature for us to try to get the best stuff, or to get the stuff that serves us first.

So in conclusion, These political ideology goes against human nature, and that why they always fail.

So what happens when it becomes beneficial for most people to live in a communistic/socialistic society?

Most communists will not disagree that people will at first look out for themselves, their family, and their friends. However, most communists will also say that the labor force, out of their own selfishness, will rise up through whatever avenue available to them and instill a socialistic government.

I hate the "Communism is against human nature" argument. Not only is it false, but it steers the discussion away from the real problems of communism/socialism.

My example assumed that a capitalist had sold all the toasters he could at a high price (let's say £100), but that he had overproduced and the only toasterless people were the ones who didn't have £100. Lowering the price to £50 or even £0.10 makes sense if he wants to sell the rest of his stock. This DOES happen all the time in modern markets. New products are almost always put into markets at extortionate prices so that rich idiots buy them, and gradually reduced in price until other areas of society buy them.

Playstations and other video game malarky used to be very expensive, but now they're very cheap (the newer models are still expensive, but in a couple of years they too will be affordable, not because they are cheaper to build, but because nobody else is willing to pay so much for them).
Actually they are selling playsations for less than the production cost because they make money on the games sold. They even give many of it. It's like printers, money is made on ink. The logic here is that early buyers pay the full price because there are few games. But consider the ford example. In the start of the 20th century, Ford decided to pay his employees well because he thought his employees were his first consumers. It worked because there was only Ford on the market back then. Nowadays, they could say screw the employees, let the competitors pay their employees high wage and buy our cars at low price. The result being that your employees can't afford your cars and neither can competitors' employees because they do the same. And look at what is happening nowadays. Ford is foreign outsourcing at lower prices and firing people at home because they can't sell their cars.

The USA, as I have already contended, is simply far larger in expanse than Cuba, whilst the necessity for the moblisation of 100 million individuals is unlikely to occur.

Democracy, the etymology and history implies the hegemony of the people. Try studying Atheninan democracy.

The Athenian democracy that put Socrates to death for his right-wing views?

Ok, but check out the USA, the UK, etc. NONE OF US ARE BUILDING RAFTS TO ESCAPE. People are allowed to leave.


People are allowed to leave Cuba too. However, if they try to leave Cuba for the United States on, say, airplanes, the U.S. government stops them and deports them to Cuba. They only get automatic legal residency if they come on homemade rafts. Actually, the U.S. government is obliged by treaty to issue 20,000 entry visas to would-be Cuban immigrants every year, and to date it has never issued more than about 3,000--usually far fewer.

BTW, Americans are legally prohibited from travel to Cuba, Iran, Syria, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

I think Frank Zappa said it best when he said “Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.”

pretty much hit the nail right on the head imo

The Athenian democracy that put Socrates to death for his right-wing views?
They put him to death because he was anti-democratic and they wanted a scape goat at the time. Also because he "corrupted Athen's youth"

I don't know if you'd call that right winged....

They put him to death because he was anti-democratic and they wanted a scape goat at the time. Also because he "corrupted Athen's youth"

I don't know if you'd call that right winged....
How was he anti-democratic exactly?

You don't need to discuss this. No ideal form of government works.

government is never ideal, although sometimes it does work.. to some extent. usually it develops, oversteps itself, and falls down abruptly.. kind of like what we're about to do here some day soon.

How was he anti-democratic exactly?

well, he directly mocked certain athenian democatic practices as being stupid, and thought that leaving decisions to the uneducated was foolish at best. and some of his students were directly involved in the overthrow of the athenian democracy and the rule of the thirty tyrants.

well, he directly mocked certain athenian democatic practices as being stupid. and some of his students were directly involved in the overthrow of the athenian democracy and the rule of the thirty tyrants.
So he was more against the athenian brand of democracy than being truly anti-democratic? Seeing that the Republic, as authored by Plato, supports an aristocratic system, I thought that that would be the reason why, seeing as Plato was his student. Personally, I find Plato's system the better one.

Socialism is failing?

Seems nobody remembered to inform Scandinavia.

Sorry I'm afraid they did. The price of housing, food and clothing is quite large in
the majority of europe, and astronomical in Scandinavia.

Sorry I'm afraid they did. The price of housing, food and clothing is quite large in
the majority of europe, and astronomical in Scandinavia.
That has to do with the market system, not socialism, which Scandinavia does not partake in.

No it isn't. Capitalism requires a complete absence of government intervention in the economy.

From that statement alone, it's unimaginably obvious that no western economy is actually capitalist.
Look, if you are refering to Adam Smith's capitalism, then yeah, there is no government intervention. However if you look to keynsian economics, and even, dare i say it... supply side economics, both are capitalist by nature. it is just a managed capitalism, due to the fact that 100% capitalism doesnt work, just as Utopian socialism doesnt.

Look, if you are refering to Adam Smith's capitalism, then yeah, there is no government intervention. However if you look to keynsian economics, and even, dare i say it... supply side economics, both are capitalist by nature. it is just a managed capitalism, due to the fact that 100% capitalism doesnt work, just as Utopian socialism doesnt.
EXACTLY. Hence, although most Western economies are mixed, they are essentially more capitalist than anything else. Most Scandinavian countries practise welfare capitalism rather than any form of socialism.

A strong leader who cannot be corrupted could do it. Like Lenin. But there aren't many Lenin's in the world. The strong leader could also brainwash everyone into socialism and prevent them from being greedy. Nothing else though...no nationalist fervor...

Socialism is about working together, not against each other. Socialism is about sharing costs and not duplicating infrastructures, research efforts, ... Socialism is about producing what is socially useful, instead of brain-washing people with advertisings to have them buy stuff they don't need. Socialism is about granting everyone conditions for them to live decently, allowing them to blossom as individuals and to contribute back to the society. Socialism is about taking decisions together, for the common interest, and not selfishly deciding for yourself and not caring about consequences on others - or on the planet itself.

Nope, didn't see an economic argument there. All I saw was a pile of emotional socialist propaganda.

Why is it that socialists tug the heart strings, and neglect logic and fact?

How could that not work better ? But if you want economic theory, I don't have the time to explain it in details right now. But have a look at Nash equilibriums, for example. Or at the works done about asymetry of information. Or the mathemical proof that even in smith-walras model (the best one for capitalism), capitalism is an unstable system. And so on...

Of you could make an economic argument that is fully logical, and addresses the facts of the world.

No matter how many historical facts you show, no matter how many proven methods you refer to... People like him will never, ever side with reason on this. I learned long ago that it's futile to debate with his kind.

BAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA

Reason? Where did he use reason? It looked like it needed a string accompaniement.

Dogburg II, lets stick to realistic solutions. Dreaming of Star Trek sounds good, but its just a TV show with Brent Spiner in it.

Explain why? As far as I can see, that would be the crux of the matter. hard to see anything of more 'worth' to the debate.

What could a purely arbitrary attempt at dividing resources show that is interesting? That some are more generous than others? That some when offered something, will try for more?

I was not under the impression that the US had actively tried to set out to feed it's entire population using only internal sources. Well... not in recent history, if even then.

Don't quibble, other nations have tried it, and failed.

No. That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying that the advantage favours the sellers in a food market. People need to eat, and, if they get hungry enough they HAVE to pay whatever the merchant charges.

I don't see how they are greatly favoured. It seems that everyone walks away from the exchange better off than they entered it. The buyer wants to eat, the seller wants money, and after the exchange has taken place, the buyer has food, and the seller money.

You're also assuming that there is only a single merchant, who can charge what he pleases without effects on his volume of business. Not a justifiable assumption.

I'd disagree on the duty thing... did you never 'serve'?

I'd say duty comes from one of two things: dependence, and love. If the former, the self-interest angle is obvious, if the latter, one sees one's interests as bound to the interests of that towards which he feels the duty.

Not even vaguely true. As I said... you are confusing socialism with Statism. A fairly simple illustration to make a liar of your argument would be a socialist anarchy.

When people talk about capitalism, no one has any trouble seeing that the arguments are about what is to be done with a particular nation state, or even globally.

When people talk about socialism, they start off with the same, until the inability of it to work at that level gets them dissembling about communal living.

Self-interest in this case, stems from shortage. If everyone has a full belly, and all materials are shared collectively, there is no logic to a black-market.

It's when the bellies aren't full that the problems arise.

Socialism can't fill the bellies.

No... actually I didn't say that at all.

Yes you did. I merely put it in a way not likely to make you look good. If you don't like that, tell someone who cares. The fact is that you said the prosecution, and punishment (which you accepted as including such things as concentrations camps and the death penalty) serves justice. Black marketeering is merely the peaceful persuit of economic interests.

What is the problem you perceive regarding information? I have no way to respond to the specifics of your thorny debate, if, for all I know, you are trying to incite me to fight another of your Strawmen.

As far as I can tell, you are talking about red tape... which is no more a characteristic of communism than it is of capitalism... and is dealt with in much the same way in either case. You delegate, you localise, you devolve.

I've outlined the information problem before. Socialism cannot produce economic calculations that reflect reality. There is no way for socialists to accurately see the demands of consumers.

Capitalism effectively furnishes this information through profit and loss, and the price system. A profit shows that resources are being used efficiently in a way that meets the demands of consumers. A loss shows the opposite.

If too much of an item is produced, then its price falls. This reduces its profitability, which gets people to reduce production. The opposite occurs with underproduction.

Socialism cannot produce such prices. The reason is that a price means "how much property to be given in exchange". Since socialism abrogates the right to property, the question of how much property in exchange becomes incimprehensible.

Socialists can make "projections" and "plans", but these will never address what people want and need because they have no way to know it, and a national economy is too complex to make accurate predictions without information.

You might devolve, and delegate, but all that will do is transfer the headache out of the capital to the provinces, or towns. You might introduce a system of money, but without private property, it is meaningless, just a more roundabout form of government rationing. You might play with "market socialism" but the prices can't relfect reality because in this case they are mere numbers, without real meaning.

Incentives? How is that a problem? Once again - you attempt to apply capitalist mindsets to communist systems. Will the worker not farm his land, if he doesn't get rich? The historical 'commons' of England imply that , yes, he will. For the simple reason that, if you don't work, you don't eat.

Do you know how incentives work, and what they are.

I shall put it simply:

A farmer has many different and diverse needs. If he tries to satisfy them all himself, firstly, he won't do it very well as his talents and training suit farming, secondly, he will be working 24 hours a day to do the substandard job. He specialises, famring more than he can use in order to fulfill his diverse needs.

You're saying that socialism won't change that. But isn't the precise point of socialism to give a chap all he needs without this business of commercial trade?

There has only been one 'Stalinist' regime. Stalin was not an attempt to make socialism palatable to the real world... Stalin was power hungry and ruthless, and got a break (well, made a break).

I didn't suggest he was trying to make it palatable, he was trying to make socialism work, and survive on a national scale. North Korea's regime is Stalinist, and it has lasted half a century with only one time in which the regime faced serious jeopardy (Korean War), and that was from without and because of their own actions. Staying within their borders (more or less, they did a lot of petty shite), and staying stalinist served Kim Il-Sung well, and serves Kim Jong-Il well too.

Not strictly true. If this were the case, the industrial revolution would never have happened (and it did not happen because of minimum wage laws - I am sure you will be the first to admit that the pioneers of industrial work earned peanuts and lived in abject poverty while the government did nothing). It is cheaper overall to build a robotic loom which can produces ten times as much material in half the time which it normally takes a person with a needle.
It is man's ability to use complex tools which makes him evolutionarily "wealthy".

True.

Regarding unemployment you're spot on. Luddites were right - because machines are ultimately cheaper and easier to maintain than people, they replace the hundreds of slaving human hands which once did their now easy jobs.

Were it actually true, no one would have a job, or very few at least. What machines actually do is not replace people, they make a person more valuable.

Lets look at nails (N.B. all figures hypothetical). A chap working manually can make 100 nails a day. With the market clearing price of a nail being $0.01, the worker must be paid less than a dollar a day. He might get $0.25.

Then we introduce a machine. One man (the operator) can make 10000 nails a day. He can now be paid out of a hundred dollars.

You say "but why would demand increase?". I'd say this, firstly, if the demand wasn't there, he wouldn't have bought the machine. If 100 nails satisfied all the demand, buying a machine makes no sense, he wouldn't want to spend his own money, and no one would want to give/lend him money. Secondly, the use of resources is relatively efficient. He can offer a lot of nails at a good price, which means he can expand the area in which he sells.

Ford is foreign outsourcing at lower prices and firing people at home because they can't sell their cars.

The real point of this is that Ford made massive malinvestments. Why can I say this? Because they were making cars that didn't sell. Henry Ford's idea about who the first consumers would be is based on a particularly prenicious piece of economic balderdash, namely that your employees should be able to afford to buy the products you produce. Why don't we take this to its logical extent.

The employees at Lockheed Martin should be able to buy F-16's, of course this would mean paying each man at least $50mil a year.

The employees at Rolls Royve should be able to buy their cars, and, what the heck, Rolls Royce's jet engines.

The employees of Boeing should be able to buy 777's, or F/A-18E/F's.

They won't stand a chance in the global market unless they emigrate (capitalist way) or get support from the outside (socialist way).
Any evidence for this statement? The facts I see are that their economy has been growing at a pretty good pace for more than a decade.

When the EU will subsidize your economy try not to think it's a fair trade for your loyalty and be more grateful.
1) What's the connection between the future European subsidies and your statement that the problems of Communism have already been solved?

2) The EU is not expanding because they are all altruistic people trying to help their poor brothers. They're doing it because it's profitable for them.

A strong leader who cannot be corrupted could do it. Like Lenin. But there aren't many Lenin's in the world. The strong leader could also brainwash everyone into socialism and prevent them from being greedy. Nothing else though...no nationalist fervor...
Lenin lost the ellections badly and then started a dictatorship. Is this such an admirable example?

The word greed doesn't really apply, and it should not be used. The word greed assumes that a "fair share" can be defined, but since this is not possible, it becomes a code for what I suspect people really mean, namely the peaceful persuit of material self-interest.

As to a "strong leader" being able to solve the problems that socialism creates (namely, that it cannot cope with people persuing self-interest), firstly, I don't see how a lack of corruptability would help, except to keep the dictator's own hand out of the cookie jar.

A dictator will be able to make socialism survive as the governing system, but he cannot make it work (in the sense of it delivering on its economic promises).

The reason he cannot is that while he can give any order, and expect it to be carried out, he doesn't have the information necessary to make his orders the sort of orders likely to improve the economic situation.

This is because socialism isn't a positive economic, it is merely the negation of key parts of capitalism, with the promise that with the removal of these and their replacement by government force, the prosperity of capitalism can be retained, or even increased. These key parts are private property and the free market.

These generate information which enables people to determine an efficient use of resources. The information comes in the form of prices, profits or losses. It is easy to see how the price system makes economic calculation possible, and I have outlined it elsewhere in the thread. A price is simply an indication of how much property must be given in exchange for the good or service desired.

Socialism cannot generate this information because there is no property to exchange, and no way for parties to negotiate the terms of an exchange. Some may counter by talking about "market socialism" (or "playing at capitalism"). The two words are a contradiction in terms. In a market, the parties in a transaction exchange titles to property. I give the shopkeeper title to my $2, he gives me title to his bottle of milk. In socialism, I never had title to the $2, and the shopkeeper never had title to the bottle of milk.

That has to do with the market system, not socialism, which Scandinavia does not partake in.

Proof?

People are allowed to leave Cuba too.

Then why does Killer Kommie Kastro's Navy kill people who attempt to leave?

That's like...economy is simply too complex to make plans that can be reconciled with reality. (Trimmed for time)

The simple way to prevent balck marketeering is, as you correctly point out, a good penal sysyem, but you seem to have the wrong idea about the specific details.

To make it work, give everyone a set of "rights" (real rights, like the right to be defended from foreign invasion, to be fed etc.) coupled with "responsibilities" (to work for the benifit of the government, not to defraud the state, etc.) if any of these responsibilities are not fulfilled, the rights are waived. Therefore, you have the only true form of total power. The criminals will know that they are only alive because you have not decided to the contrary. Imposing the death penalty is useless, and can be illustrated with this short anecdote:

A German deserter was arrested and sentenced to death in Russia. He was being led to the execution yard, when an SS Feldgendarmie sergeant kicked him. He lost his temper, turned round, and nearly strangled him. The guards pulled him off, and the sergeant told him to get back in line, or he'd... then the prisoner inturrupted. "Or else what?" They could do nothing more than they were already about to. When you take nothing from someone, or everything from them, you have no power over them. Only when you take something and leave the threat of taking something else can you have power over them.

The simple way to prevent balck marketeering is, as you correctly point out, a good penal sysyem, but you seem to have the wrong idea about the specific details.

It takes more than a good penal system, as I pointed out.

To make it work, give everyone a set of "rights" (real rights, like the right to be defended from foreign invasion, to be fed etc.) coupled with "responsibilities" (to work for the benifit of the government, not to defraud the state, etc.) if any of these responsibilities are not fulfilled, the rights are waived.

Firstly, a right is not given, it inherient in being human.

Second, a real right is one that applies to only that which one owns, ergo, the right to be fed isn't a right, unless you are referring strictly to property rights in a negative sense.

Thirdly, you have not addressed the details in any way.

How could you make it work?

Let us consider the black market. Market is simple enough, the market is simply a term that describes the voluntary exchanges of goods and services. Black is used in the same way as "black program", or "black ops", or "black budget". It is unofficial, "off the books", and secret. To stop the black market, the government must obviously break into this secret world. They must create a secret police like the KGB, or the Gestapo, which is in turn supported by thousands, perhaps millions of informers. People participating in a black market transaction must fear that not only bystanders are agents/informers, but the other party/parties in the transaction are agents/informers.

As to punishments, we seem to be in agreement that the most severe punishments are necessary. They must create fear.

As to the administration of punishment, it cannot be left in the hands of jury trials, juries are too uncertain, they tend to be nice sympathetic people. A jury won't send someone to prison because he bought some bread on the black market for his children. An independent judiciary is also not certain. An adminstrative tribunal, controlled by the state for state interests is the only sure thing. Such tribunals must inspire fear (like National Socialist Germany's Volksgericht (People's Court, led by Roland Freisler)). We might even go all the way, and empower police agents to carry out punishment on the spot.

These are the three elements to stopping a black market. Severe punishments, high likelyhood of being caught, and a high likelyhood of suffering these punishments after having been caught.

Incidently, you didn't really contradict the key elements of the post to which you refer. You gave some mildly interesting insights on penal methodology, which are however not really relevant to my general point, or specific ideas on how to combat a black market.

I shall state my general point again: Socialism's inevitable economic failures will lead to shortages, history has shown this. These shortages will lead to black markets in which government goods are diverted to private trading. To successfully combat a black market, a totalitarian state is necessary. Without such a state, the black market assumes major proportions, and socialism remains in name only.

A German deserter was arrested and sentenced to death in Russia. He was being led to the execution yard, when an SS Feldgendarmie sergeant kicked him. He lost his temper, turned round, and nearly strangled him. The guards pulled him off, and the sergeant told him to get back in line, or he'd... then the prisoner inturrupted. "Or else what?" They could do nothing more than they were already about to. When you take nothing from someone, or everything from them, you have no power over them. Only when you take something and leave the threat of taking something else can you have power over them.

An interesting anecdote. I don't think it demonstrates anything except that threatening to kill people who are already sentenced to death is a small waste of time. We might have worked that for ourselves.

By the way, the death penalty comes up in terms of black market activity in socialist states because the economic plan is part of the supreme law of the state. In a socialist state, it is logical to regard black market activity as a form of treason, or sedition.

Any evidence for this statement? The facts I see are that their economy has been growing at a pretty good pace for more than a decade.
I don't really know what's going on in Senegal, so I'll assume that GDP growth is the standard to rate nations lifestyle and ignore everything else.

1) What's the connection between the future European subsidies and your statement that the problems of Communism have already been solved?
2) The EU is not expanding because they are all altruistic people trying to help their poor brothers. They're doing it because it's profitable for them.
1) Communism can work in very particular situations, as most of you tend to admit at times. And I said socialism problems...
2) We are socialists but we are not fools.
Socialism is based on continuos redistribution of wealth, not abolition of private property. Capitalism is based on unregulated trades. You probably are a (modern?) socialist and yet don't know it. If you want to arrogate to capitalism all the rights of the workers (even rich traders) and the have-nots go ahead, I'll be glad to hear your logic.

1) Communism can work in very particular situations, as most of you tend to admit at times. And I said socialism problems...

Communism and socialism have always been posited as the ideal economic systems for a nation. It is of no interest to point out that the economics of a family are basically communistic. The fact is that socialism of any kind cannot work economically at the national level, and socialists can only survive in government for a long time by instituting a totalitarian state.

Socialism is based on continuos redistribution of wealth, not abolition of private property.

Socialism is an economic system based on state ownership of property. It is the defining aspect of socialism, and all of the particulars of socialism come from that fact.

Redistribution is welfate statism, or "welfare capitalism"

Capitalism is based on unregulated trades.

Capitalism is based on private owners of property making mutually beneficial, voluntary trades.

Government intervention never has the conseqences intended, and its main use is to give big business advantages that it could not get in a free market, this takes the form of compliance costs (large firms are better placed to handle huge amounts of red tape, in fact many would have it without government regulations), and straight out limitations on business.

The start of it is limited liability laws. Limited liability laws separate ownership from control and responsibility.

Here's how it works: Suppose that Happy Drug Company (HDC) has $100 market value financed solely by stock (equity). If HDC puts out a drug that unintentionally harms people, they or their survivors can sue the company but not the stockholders or manager-owners of the company. The liability of the latter two groups is limited. That means that the most that can be recovered depends on the worth of the company’s assets that can meet the claims. The two main possibilities are that the company has enough assets to pay off the claims and that it does not have enough.

For example, if the company used up $40 of its value in paying off claims, the stockholders might be left with $60. In this case, the limited liability would not hurt those who were harmed because the company had enough to pay off. If the claims came to $135, however, then the company could pay at most $100. (I am intentionally simplifying the situation in a number of ways.) The people damaged could not legally assess the individual stockholders or the manager-owners for the other $35.

(Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff28.html

Further reading:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff28.html

http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc135.htm )

Limited liability is a privilege granted by the state. It cannot arise in a free market with full property rights and responsibilities.

The effect of limited liability is to create an incentive to harm people, and property.

After that, we are forever spoken at about the need for regulation, a need created by the people doing the regulating!

If you think a free market means corporatism, you need you head checked. Large corporations are creatures of the state.

Firstly, a right is not given, it inherient in being human.


Poppycock.

The only thing 'inherent' in being 'human', is that: the fact that you are 'human'.

There are no 'rights', except as granted to the individual BY their peers.

Poppycock.

The only thing 'inherent' in being 'human', is that: the fact that you are 'human'.

There are no 'rights', except as granted to the individual BY their peers.

Hes right. were unified through fear. We stick together because if we didnt we'd have to defend our land with big swords and guns against another lot of us with big swords and guns. Its either fear or lazyness...

I have changed my opinion.

The biggest obstacle to Communism is the fact that too many people appear to have no understanding of the basic market principles of their own nations, and thus base their opinions about 'Capitalism' on an almost religious faith.


Don't quibble, other nations have tried it, and failed.


1) Historically - yes. If you go back far enough, every group of people has tried to feed themselves...

2) Which are your examples of 20th Century nations, with modern agricultural science, that tried to feed themselves and failed?

3) Not ALL nations are the third largest nation... the US could easily do it, no?


I don't see how they are greatly favoured. It seems that everyone walks away from the exchange better off than they entered it. The buyer wants to eat, the seller wants money, and after the exchange has taken place, the buyer has food, and the seller money.

You're also assuming that there is only a single merchant, who can charge what he pleases without effects on his volume of business. Not a justifiable assumption.


First year principia. In a supply-and-demand economy, whichever side of that equilibrium has least pressing need, has most power.

So - if you have hungry people, ALL purveyors of food can charge higher prices. And, because the product is essential, those prices must be met.

Thus, the consumer gets gouged, and the seller gets rich.

Try looking at the GINI of the USA sometime... you'll see that actually in practise... and you'll also see why a socialist coup is almost inevitable in the US, sooner or later.


I'd say duty comes from one of two things: dependence, and love. If the former, the self-interest angle is obvious, if the latter, one sees one's interests as bound to the interests of that towards which he feels the duty.


So, in your opinion, Patriotism is only a form of self-interest?


When people talk about capitalism, no one has any trouble seeing that the arguments are about what is to be done with a particular nation state, or even globally.

When people talk about socialism, they start off with the same, until the inability of it to work at that level gets them dissembling about communal living.


What on earth are you talking about?

Anarcho-communism can be a local or global model... what are you obsession about communes for?


Socialism can't fill the bellies.


No. Because socialism is a concept. And people cannot eat concepts.

Aside from a soundbite, did your comment have a point?


Yes you did. I merely put it in a way not likely to make you look good. If you don't like that, tell someone who cares. The fact is that you said the prosecution, and punishment (which you accepted as including such things as concentrations camps and the death penalty) serves justice. Black marketeering is merely the peaceful persuit of economic interests.


Strawman. You are putting your own models forwards, then tailoring my answers to fit your needs.

I still habve not said what you claim... or any of your insipid new claims, either.

SHOW me where I accepted concentration camps?


I've outlined the information problem before. Socialism cannot produce economic calculations that reflect reality. There is no way for socialists to accurately see the demands of consumers.

Capitalism effectively furnishes this information through profit and loss, and the price system. A profit shows that resources are being used efficiently in a way that meets the demands of consumers. A loss shows the opposite.

If too much of an item is produced, then its price falls. This reduces its profitability, which gets people to reduce production. The opposite occurs with underproduction.

Socialism cannot produce such prices. The reason is that a price means "how much property to be given in exchange". Since socialism abrogates the right to property, the question of how much property in exchange becomes incimprehensible.

Socialists can make "projections" and "plans", but these will never address what people want and need because they have no way to know it, and a national economy is too complex to make accurate predictions without information.

You might devolve, and delegate, but all that will do is transfer the headache out of the capital to the provinces, or towns. You might introduce a system of money, but without private property, it is meaningless, just a more roundabout form of government rationing. You might play with "market socialism" but the prices can't relfect reality because in this case they are mere numbers, without real meaning.


What is it about adherents of the Capitalist Faith, that they cannot perceive a world without their 'god' in it?

You try to apply the mechanisms of Capitalism, even where they are not needed, so desperate (it appears) are you to see 'prices', 'profit and loss', and other trappings of your religion.

And yet, at some level, even the devotee of capitalism KNOWS that the two things cannot be merged in that fashion: "Since socialism abrogates the right to property, the question of how much property in exchange becomes incimprehensible". You know it already.... so why keep on about 'profitability' or 'property values'?

Socialism ALWAYS comes back to a devolution, because it is about people. And I am local, to me.

The heart of every socialism that 'works' centres around localisation... even if it is on a global scale. And, the information is actually not that big a deal... if I have five apples, five people, and a need ratio of one apple:one person, the information 'problem' is first grade stuff.


Do you know how incentives work, and what they are.

I shall put it simply:

A farmer has many different and diverse needs. If he tries to satisfy them all himself, firstly, he won't do it very well as his talents and training suit farming, secondly, he will be working 24 hours a day to do the substandard job. He specialises, famring more than he can use in order to fulfill his diverse needs.

You're saying that socialism won't change that. But isn't the precise point of socialism to give a chap all he needs without this business of commercial trade?


Again, so blind is faith, that you attempt to impose capitalist idols onto socialism. 'Trade' need not be capitalist... and transfer of goods need not be 'trade'.

The communist farmer has food, but needs electricity. The people who run the communist power plant have electricity, but need food (and fuel... but that is extending the model, which still holds true). The farmer shares his food. The power plant shares electricity.

Repeat after me: "From each, according to ability. To each, according to need". It really isn't that difficult.


I didn't suggest he was trying to make it palatable, he was trying to make socialism work, and survive on a national scale.


No. Stalin was trying to make himself powerful. Communism was the vehicle he was driving. If the Revolution had put capitalists in power, Stalin would have tried to become head of the Capitalist Party.


Were it actually true, no one would have a job, or very few at least. What machines actually do is not replace people, they make a person more valuable.


Utter poppycock. Unless, your definition of 'valuable' is the same as my definition of 'unemployed'.


Lets look at nails (N.B. all figures hypothetical). A chap working manually can make 100 nails a day. With the market clearing price of a nail being $0.01, the worker must be paid less than a dollar a day. He might get $0.25.

Then we introduce a machine. One man (the operator) can make 10000 nails a day. He can now be paid out of a hundred dollars.


And, that hundred dollars is devalued by production costs across the board.
The only way your mechanism works is if that worker gets paid the SAME per-unit allowance (which is vaguely possible, IF the worker is a Sole Trader), AND if the worker is the ONLY person with a machine.


You say "but why would demand increase?". I'd say this, firstly, if the demand wasn't there, he wouldn't have bought the machine. If 100 nails satisfied all the demand, buying a machine makes no sense, he wouldn't want to spend his own money, and no one would want to give/lend him money. Secondly, the use of resources is relatively efficient. He can offer a lot of nails at a good price, which means he can expand the area in which he sells.


Advertising is a practise designed SPECIFICALLY to create demand to meet estabished supply. Back to the drawing-board, I'm afraid.

Communism and socialism have always been posited as the ideal economic systems for a nation. It is of no interest to point out that the economics of a family are basically communistic. The fact is that socialism of any kind cannot work economically at the national level, and socialists can only survive in government for a long time by instituting a totalitarian state.
Whatever dude. If it's a fact I'll have to accept it.

Socialism is an economic system based on state ownership of property. It is the defining aspect of socialism, and all of the particulars of socialism come from that fact.
Redistribution is welfare statism, or "welfare capitalism"
Says who? Libertarian propaganda? I think your state owns alot of property: schools, military, yadda yadda... Doesn't it mean you are socialists?

Capitalism is based on private owners of property making mutually beneficial, voluntary trades.
Government intervention never has the conseqences intended, and its main use is to give big business advantages that it could not get in a free market, this takes the form of compliance costs (large firms are better placed to handle huge amounts of red tape, in fact many would have it without government regulations), and straight out limitations on business.
The start of it is limited liability laws. Limited liability laws separate ownership from control and responsibility.
What's the problem with that? Since when having a stable economy is seen as a bad thing? Would you really want to punish people who fail at businness like they committed a crime? Then you should know that the real crime is working for your own interests instead of for something good (like theft?).

Limited liability is a privilege granted by the state. It cannot arise in a free market with full property rights and responsibilities.
The effect of limited liability is to create an incentive to harm people, and property.
After that, we are forever spoken at about the need for regulation, a need created by the people doing the regulating!
If you think a free market means corporatism, you need you head checked. Large corporations are creatures of the state.
You fail to see the bigger picture and get to implications that don't really add up.
Incentive to harm people and property? It is a safe net to protect people whose property has been harmed imho. But if you think that losing everything you have is not enough of a deterrent then you need your head checked.

Hes right. were unified through fear. We stick together because if we didnt we'd have to defend our land with big swords and guns against another lot of us with big swords and guns. Its either fear or lazyness...

Exactly... all our 'rights' are established through negotiation, of force... "by the Word, or by the Sword".

Try explaining you 'fundamental human right to live' to gravity, when you fall out of the 72nd storey...

Dogburg II, lets stick to realistic solutions. Dreaming of Star Trek sounds good, but its just a TV show with Brent Spiner in it.


I am not dreaming and I do not watch Star trek. I genuinely believe that using whatever means possible, mankind should aim for the total elimination of all difficult or unenjoyable work.

I think you're just sore that I am no longer blindly defending conventional laissez-faire.

I'll reply to myself while I'm at it.
Whatever dude. If it's a fact I'll have to accept it.
Not that capitalism is any different, but ok.

Says who? Libertarian propaganda? I think your state owns alot of property: schools, military, yadda yadda... Doesn't it mean you are socialists?
I guess not, since the state is so corrupted it doesn't really make a difference.

What's the problem with that? Since when having a stable economy is seen as a bad thing? Would you really want to punish people who fail at businness like they committed a crime? Then you should know that the real crime is working for your own interests instead of for something good (like theft?).
Yes, punish them for stupidity, they should know better than start a bussiness that will fail, pursuing nothing but their interests and being a drag on the economy.

You fail to see the bigger picture and get to implications that don't really add up.
Incentive to harm people and property? It is a safe net to protect people whose property has been harmed imho. But if you think that losing everything you have is not enough of a deterrent then you need your head checked.
See the above post, their property has been harmed by their inefficiency, and they knew the risk was there.

Do I qualify as a good libertarian?

I am not dreaming and I do not watch Star trek. I genuinely believe that using whatever means possible, mankind should aim for the total elimination of all difficult or unenjoyable work.

I think you're just sore that I am no longer blindly defending conventional laissez-faire.

I don't deny that it would be nice. I deny that it would be possible.

What's the problem with that? Since when having a stable economy is seen as a bad thing? Would you really want to punish people who fail at businness like they committed a crime? Then you should know that the real crime is working for your own interests instead of for something good (like theft?).

Where did that come from?

It is a safe net to protect people whose property has been harmed imho.

By limiting the liability of those who have done the harm?

But if you think that losing everything you have is not enough of a deterrent then you need your head checked.

The point is they don't lose everything under limited liability.

So - if you have hungry people, ALL purveyors of food can charge higher prices. And, because the product is essential, those prices must be met.

And they are all free to charge lower prices to attract custom from the others.

No. Because socialism is a concept. And people cannot eat concepts.

Aside from a soundbite, did your comment have a point?

Don't nitpick, you know exactly what I meant, socialism will fail to deliver on its promises.

Strawman. You are putting your own models forwards, then tailoring my answers to fit your needs.

I still habve not said what you claim... or any of your insipid new claims, either.

SHOW me where I accepted concentration camps?

Firstly, it is not my model, it is what happens in socialism. Secondly, you claimed that courts that punished people for persuing their own self interest were acting justly.

The heart of every socialism that 'works' centres around localisation... even if it is on a global scale. And, the information is actually not that big a deal... if I have five apples, five people, and a need ratio of one apple:one person, the information 'problem' is first grade stuff.

Provided the society with which we are dealing consists of five people who live on apples entirely. Try applying to millions of people with varied, and complex needs, and keep a high living standard.

Others have tried, and failed.

You're oversimplifying the problem, and therefore making my point for me.

Information is a big deal, without it we introduce randomness into production, distribution, and consumption.

Simply localising isn't going to work, unless you are talking about totally self-sufficient, isolated communities, small enough, and with a low enough living standard to render the problem as simple as you would like it to be.

Again, so blind is faith, that you attempt to impose capitalist idols onto socialism. 'Trade' need not be capitalist... and transfer of goods need not be 'trade'.

The communist farmer has food, but needs electricity. The people who run the communist power plant have electricity, but need food (and fuel... but that is extending the model, which still holds true). The farmer shares his food. The power plant shares electricity.

You're oversimplifying, and therefore making my point for me.

No. Stalin was trying to make himself powerful. Communism was the vehicle he was driving. If the Revolution had put capitalists in power, Stalin would have tried to become head of the Capitalist Party.

Then why did he stick to socialism, instead of doing something else? It doesn't matter that it was communists that the revolutionaries put into power, he can make of it what he likes, and kill anyone who doesn't like it. He believed in socialism since his youth, there is nothing to indicate that he did not believe it, and his policies show that he did believe in it, and advance it. He believed in it to the extent that he thought that socialism in industry could make the Soviet Union the industrial power, outstripping the capitalist nations.

The only way your mechanism works is if that worker gets paid the SAME per-unit allowance (which is vaguely possible, IF the worker is a Sole Trader),

If his pay were reduced, why would he stay? His employer can afford to pay him more because his labour produces greater revenue. Your objection would require a monopoly to be valid. Perhaps you can only think in terms of a monopoly because that is what socialism is monopoly.

Advertising is a practise designed SPECIFICALLY to create demand to meet estabished supply. Back to the drawing-board, I'm afraid.

You mean people shouldn't try to persuade others to buy what they produce? Why ever not?

The presence of advertising doesn't affect the validity of what I said. Spending money on advertising is no different to spending money on machines, it is a way to try to make capital generate more revenue.

Surely communism could workif their was no money - hence everything would be bartered. If you have 50 farmers working a farm, their produce could be exchanged for elctricity, running water, machinery etc. It would take a while to get used to, and there's always the problem of a viable incentive to be efficient.

I don't really know what's going on in Senegal, so I'll assume that GDP growth is the standard to rate nations lifestyle and ignore everything else.
GDP measures a nation's wealth and economy.

1) Communism can work in very particular situations, as most of you tend to admit at times. And I said socialism problems...
OK

2) We are socialists but we are not fools.
Socialism is based on continuos redistribution of wealth, not abolition of private property. Capitalism is based on unregulated trades. You probably are a (modern?) socialist and yet don't know it. If you want to arrogate to capitalism all the rights of the workers (even rich traders) and the have-nots go ahead, I'll be glad to hear your logic.
Well, I'm not against a public schools system or a basic welfare state, but all of them within a Capitalist society. So a certain level of redistribution is acceptable, as long as that redistribution doesn't suffocate the economy.

Surely communism could workif their was no money - hence everything would be bartered. If you have 50 farmers working a farm, their produce could be exchanged for elctricity, running water, machinery etc. It would take a while to get used to, and there's always the problem of a viable incentive to be efficient.
What if I'm a lamp maker? Do I have to exchange lamps for eggs, meat, bread, sugar, electricity etc? I'd have to always, practically every day, find an egg producer in need of a lamp, a meat producer in need of a lamp, a clothes producer in need of a lamp, an electicity producer in need of a lamp, a baker in need of a lamp etc. It would be practically impossible.

The apparition of money was a progress.

Surely communism could workif their was no money - hence everything would be bartered. If you have 50 farmers working a farm, their produce could be exchanged for elctricity, running water, machinery etc. It would take a while to get used to, and there's always the problem of a viable incentive to be efficient.

No. Money isn't some evil force, it's an easy representation of wealth. The fundamental principles of economics apply to the exchange of wealth, not necessarily the exchange of money. The only effect money-elimination has is the total stagnation of the economy.

In a situation without money, a man who builds toasters but needs medicine to save his dying child needs to find a medicine producer who wants a toaster.

With money, the toaster maker can sell his toaster to ANYONE who wants a toaster and has money, and give his money to the doctor for medicine.

It would be nice if you actually bothered to show when you were responding to different posters, all within the same post... or if you took the time to post two different replies, rather than just one big reply that throws a whole load of answers out for people to sift through...

And they are all free to charge lower prices to attract custom from the others.


Sure... that's market forces for you... however, even the LOWEST bid of a whole slew of price-gougers, is STILL price-gouging.


Don't nitpick, you know exactly what I meant, socialism will fail to deliver on its promises.


As will capitalism. Your phrase was hollow rhetoric. Which is not feeding the debate.


Firstly, it is not my model, it is what happens in socialism. Secondly, you claimed that courts that punished people for persuing their own self interest were acting justly.


You CLAIM it happens in socialism. Thus - it IS your model.

After all, I have lived in a communal environment, which matches none of the characteristics you claim... so you are not talking a UNIVERSAL rule.

Secondly - the claim that courts that "punished people for persuing their own self interest were acting justly" still is not MY words... and still wouldn't be in any way approval for concentration camps.

Person A kills person B. Person C is the judge who finds person A 'guilty'. Person D calls for the death-sentence. Person E calls for life imprisonment. Person F calls for 25 years. The court was just, justice was served... but opinion differs over what EXTENT of punitive action constitutes fair interpretation of 'justice'.


Provided the society with which we are dealing consists of five people who live on apples entirely. Try applying to millions of people with varied, and complex needs, and keep a high living standard.

Others have tried, and failed.


Again. A nebulous quote of 'tried and failed'. I doubt you have any actual evidence for THIS 'tried and failed' assertion, than you had for the last. (Which you have still not supported, at all).


You're oversimplifying the problem, and therefore making my point for me.


Not at all. I see it in it's simplest terms. Those simple terms can be expanded out to include every good and service.

However, that would take far more than just one post SHOULD take... and is more time than I am willing to commit to answering ONE point of your 'debate'.

If you cannot see that, what is true for apples is ALSO true for blankets, then it is no wonder you cannot get your head around a concept like socialism.


Information is a big deal, without it we introduce randomness into production, distribution, and consumption.

Simply localising isn't going to work, unless you are talking about totally self-sufficient, isolated communities, small enough, and with a low enough living standard to render the problem as simple as you would like it to be.


Where do you get randomness from? You are afraid that the lightbulb machine is going to throw out the occassional ice-cream if we are not capitalists?

And, one wonders WHY you automatically assume that delgated/devolved living automatically equates to a 'low living standard'...

Or HOW you manage to miss the fact that something like a tenth of all 'Americans' live below the poverty line (12%, I believe), and many more live below the supposed average wage-rate for their family size.

Low living standards are nothing new... and they are FAR from isolated to living in communist societies.

And, that disparity in living conditions is more noticable in the US than in many places, unless you somehow blind yourself to it. Examining the GINI index shows that the disparity in living conditions in the US is equal to that usually considered exemplary of sub-saharan nations.


You're oversimplifying, and therefore making my point for me.


Not at all. Me using simple examples in NO way 'proves' your argument any more valid.


Then why did he stick to socialism, instead of doing something else? It doesn't matter that it was communists that the revolutionaries put into power, he can make of it what he likes, and kill anyone who doesn't like it. He believed in socialism since his youth, there is nothing to indicate that he did not believe it, and his policies show that he did believe in it, and advance it. He believed in it to the extent that he thought that socialism in industry could make the Soviet Union the industrial power, outstripping the capitalist nations.


Stalin rebelled against the poor living conditions in Tsarist Russian territories, since the Tsar claimed 'ownership' of EVERYTHING. The political movement which arose to resist this regime, was one of redistribution of autocratically controlled wealth and property. Those who opposed the Tsarist regime, therefore were most likely to become members of this fledgling communist organisation. THAT is why Stalin 'believed in socialism', and why he was a member of the Communist Party.


If his pay were reduced, why would he stay? His employer can afford to pay him more because his labour produces greater revenue. Your objection would require a monopoly to be valid. Perhaps you can only think in terms of a monopoly because that is what socialism is monopoly.


Is the only method you can see to prove your point, dishonesty?

How is socialism 'monopoly'? If anything, socialism is diametrically opposed to monopoly. Really- this is basic stuff.

Again - perhaps you are getting caught up in the confusion over 'statism' versus 'socialism'.

And... again you resort to Strawman arguments...


You mean people shouldn't try to persuade others to buy what they produce? Why ever not?

The presence of advertising doesn't affect the validity of what I said. Spending money on advertising is no different to spending money on machines, it is a way to try to make capital generate more revenue.

Another Strawman. I said nothing about how people "shouldn't try to persuade others to buy what they produce".

You are labouring under the misapprehension that you are somehow validating YOUR argument, by making up spurious arguments about my platform.

You said that overproduction would be pointless because supply that is not met by demand is wasted (those are (obviously) my words, not yours)... and I pointed out that that 'problem' was EXACTLY why businesses advertise.

That is nowhere akin to this Strawman you are now toting.

What if I'm a lamp maker? Do I have to exchange lamps for eggs, meat, bread, sugar, electricity etc? I'd have to always, practically every day, find an egg producer in need of a lamp, a meat producer in need of a lamp, a clothes producer in need of a lamp, an electicity producer in need of a lamp, a baker in need of a lamp etc. It would be practically impossible.

The apparition of money was a progress.

Do you think everyone needs lamps?

Do you think everyone needs eggs?

I'd say that most people will have some need of both... and they'd know where to find them, would they not?

Especially if your local communities collectivised their space, as well as their production, and stored all produce in the same environment.

"From each, according to ability. To each, according to need".

Surely communism could workif their was no money - hence everything would be bartered.

why would a communist economy be based on barter?

Do you think everyone needs lamps?

Do you think everyone needs eggs?

I'd say that most people will have some need of both... and they'd know where to find them, would they not?

Especially if your local communities collectivised their space, as well as their production, and stored all produce in the same environment.
I'd say it's a very inefficient method. Plus, you can't store everything. Some goods are perishable.

Let's take an extreme example. Your child has a very rare disease, which can be treated with some very rare medicine. You need to find fast a producer of that rare type of medicine in need of lamps. Maybe you find, but maybe you don't. Wouldn't it be simpler if you sold your lamp to a random person, then use those money to buy the medicine you need?

"From each, according to ability. To each, according to need".
Exactly! Give that poor child the medicine he needs now, not when you find a medicine producer who needs a lamp. Because in the meantime, your child (or worse, my child, if you force me to adopt that system) may die.

how the the F*CK could communism or socialism work if this THREAD can't even work. i mean LOOK at all this bullsh*t. !!! :p

I'd say it's a very inefficient method. Plus, you can't store everything. Some goods are perishable.

Let's take an extreme example. Your child has a very rare disease, which can be treated with some very rare medicine. You need to find fast a producer of that rare type of medicine in need of lamps. Maybe you find, but maybe you don't. Wouldn't it be simpler if you sold your lamp to a random person, then use those money to buy the medicine you need?


No, my friend... you are still thinking like a capitalist.

There are other methods of distributing things, than just straightforward exchange.

"From each, according to ability":

I am a tomato farmer. Every year, I get a yield of tomatoes from my farm. Over the course of several weeks, I harvest the various tomatoes as they ripen, and I carry them to the distribution centre (I requisition one of the trucks from the stores for the purpose).

"To Each, according to need":

Anyone who wants tomatoes can come to the stores during that harvest period, and get 'fresh' tomatoes. Some of the tomatoes will be canned as the end of the growing season approaches, so that the perishable goods are not wasted.

"To each, according to need":

In our particular community, we also like tomato paste, so we set aside a certain amount of the fruit for that purpose... ...which the Tomato Paste maker comes to collect...

"From each, according to ability":

...to return in the form of Tomato Paste, some time later.

"To each, according to need":

Even you (the lamp maker) come and collect some tomatoes. They are good tomatoes. Yum.

"From each, according to ability":

Over the course of the year, you produce about ten lamps a week. Every Saturday, you take your ten lamps to the distribution centre.

"To each, according to need":

And, every so often, other citizens come to pick up a lamp, when they need one. Even me, because I need some light on my tomato farm.

(It is also worth noting, perhaps, that the Tomato Farmer islikely ALSO a shepherd, or other career... so that his winters are not 'wasted').


So - what about the medicine? It is brought in as needed, from a community where they HAVE rare medicine... just as some of our goods can go to THAT community. (Maybe they have no canned tomatoes?).


Exactly! Give that poor child the medicine he needs now, not when you find a medicine producer who needs a lamp. Because in the meantime, your child (or worse, my child, if you force me to adopt that system) may die.

You notice that, once we start sharing our resources, even our families become more entwined?

As I said... there is no necessity for a delay, because the 'exchange' process need not be an exact barter of goods for services.

There are other methods of distributing things, than just straightforward exchange.

but understanding that would be difficult and shatter certain deeply held assumptions...

but understanding that would be difficult and shatter certain deeply held assumptions...

One of the posters posted something the other day, about people with deep-seated convictions, that somehow manage to 'hardwire' their brains until they cannot see the other side of the debate. (This is my version of their wording, obviously).

To me, it seems that many people have just such opinions on the capitalist/communist debate. Capitalism has been almost deified... to the extent that it is given an almost religious connotation - people literally cannot conceptualise a world without it....

Capitalism has been almost deified... to the extent that it is given an almost religious connotation - people literally cannot conceptualise a world without it....

indeed. which is part of why i find it fun to constantly bring up anthropological knowledge in such debates. it forces them make a choice between data and ideological lies. they almost uniformly choose the comforting lies. and then at least i know where we stand.

Tomatoes 'n' lamps


This is not a better place to live. The tomato farmer is working just the same as he would under a capitalist system, and his life is still a boring, tomato-harvesting chore. Same with the lamp guy. Also, if they don't work flat out, they are not producing "according to their ability", and would need to be removed from the society by some vague means (exiled to the wilderness? made to work harder? killed? All possible options suck).

The current system is bad, but at least I only HAVE to work as much as I need to in order to stay alive, which is technically none since the government is willing to give me money for nothing. (However, in order to live a life far enough in comfort above street-person for me to actually enjoy, I have to work, but still thankfully not as much as my maximum ability dictates).

snip
I've talked before about why such a system wouldn't work. However, it's 9:30 PM and I don't feel like starting a debate I can't finish. It's interesting though that most people supporting Communism come from countries which have never experienced it first hand.

This is not a better place to live. The tomato farmer is working just the same as he would under a capitalist system, and his life is still a boring, tomato-harvesting chore. Same with the lamp guy. Also, if they don't work flat out, they are not producing "according to their ability", and would need to be removed from the society by some vague means (exiled to the wilderness? made to work harder? killed? All possible options suck).

The current system is bad, but at least I only HAVE to work as much as I need to in order to stay alive, which is technically none since the government is willing to give me money for nothing. (However, in order to live a life far enough in comfort above street-person for me to actually enjoy, I have to work, but still thankfully not as much as my maximum ability dictates).

First: "his life is still a boring, tomato-harvesting chore". What a curious perspective. I know MY life is filled with MANY details not related to my work.

Second: "Also, if they don't work flat out, they are not producing "according to their ability", and would need to be removed from the society by some vague means". Another curious notion. At my job, I work to the extent of my capabilities, but I am not 'killing myself' over it. Could I 'work harder'? In some ways I could... I could work faster, but my quality would drop... I could finesse every detail, but my workrate would plummet.

The farmer is out in the fields, farming his tomatoes. Could he 'farm harder'? Maybe he could skimp on the time he takes irrigating or hoeing... but then his quality drops, no? He could polish each tomato... but his productivity will nosedive.

Each worker finds a happy medium.... they do what is needed to be efficient at their job. Perhaps you are lazier than I... if I were the farmer, I would not be 'slacking off' just because I wasn't 'getting paid'... I would be aware of the fact that my whole community NEEDS my product, and I would be proud of, motivated by, and even encouraged by, that knowledge.

Thirdly: In a capitalist society, there are often complaints that the wealth of some is distributed to cover the laziness of others. It is the same complaint you level at communism. If you choose to live within the society, you NEED to carry your own weight, otherwise others will not be as well disposed to help you.

So - the one who wastes his days, is going to find that others will not be swayed by his arguments that he is 'producing, according to his abilities'. Consequently, when he demands to be given 'according to his needs', he is likely to encounter a less benevolent society.


You just aren't getting your head around what it means to actually live WITHIN a communal society.

I've talked before about why such a system wouldn't work. However, it's 9:30 PM and I don't feel like starting a debate I can't finish. It's interesting though that most people supporting Communism come from countries which have never experienced it first hand.

I fear you are confusing Statist communism, with any form of 'real' communism.

It's interesting, though, that most people opposing communism, have shitloads of money, and don't seem to care about other people...

Why dont people like socialism and communism
A. Propoganda.
B. They are rich\middle class (not generalising, because im middle class and im a commie!)

CASES AGAINST CAPITALISM.
Hitler.
Bush.
Armenian Genocide.
Colonialism.
Rich-Poor Gap.
Class Privelage
14 hour day
7 day week
Opium wars
Children in coalmines
Paris Commune
Slavery
Spanish Civil War
Boer War
Starvation of the Poor and Fatness of the Rich
Apartheid
Anti-Union laws
WW1
WW2
Flanders
Facism
Nazism
Great Depression
Hunger Marches
Spanish-American War
Militarism
Belsen
Hiroshima
Dresden
Racism
The Mafia
Nukes
Mcarthyism
Blacklists
Lynchings
The rape of the third world
The arms race
Death Penalty
Military Supression Of:
Greece India Turkey Malaya Indonesia Chile El-Salvador Nicargua and Panama
The gulf war
50,000,000 deaths and executions of Communists and trade unionists in the last century alone...

AGAINST COMMUNISM
Duuuh... tis bad cos my pappy dun said so...

AGAINST SOCIALISM
...pay how much tax? screw that.

Cant't... hold... myself.
Why dont people like socialism and communism
A. Propoganda.
B. They are rich\middle class (not generalising, because im middle class and im a commie!)A. Experience.

B. Common sense.

As for your extensive list, I don't think you realise Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. Capitalism and democracy aren't mutually exclusive and actually work best together (as shown by all the Western countries). Actually, I can't find a Capitalist democracy which isn't reasonably well off or with a growing economy. If they aren't, then it's because they've only been so for a small period of time.

You also don't realise Hitler was Socialist (National Socialist, more exactly). He even adopted many Socialist measures (free holidays etc).

*doesn't bother to read topic*

We've been through this a million times. Socialism and communism will never work because there's no incentive for technological advance, or even for people to work, and thus society collapses. End of story.

Cant't... hold... myself.


You also don't realise Hitler was Socialist (National Socialist, more exactly). He even adopted many Socialist measures (free holidays etc).

Dude... yeh cos thats really Left wing to go kill people.
Yeeh he had SOME good policies but most were crap.
Banning hunting for example... makes you wonder if he was as insane as people claim.

CASES AGAINST CAPITALISM.


Oh please. I'm not a raving capitalist but half of these are just bull.

Hitler - Yeah, capitalists and communists joined forces to defeat this Fascist nutjob.

Bush - I think most his retarded policies stem from religion, not economics.

Armenian Genocide - Wasn't the Ottoman Empire in the 1910's just a militaristic aristocracy populated mainly by peasant farmers? They surely were not industrial capitalists.

Colonialism - No bed of roses, but started around the 1600's, long before the industrial revolution and the dawn of capitalism.

Slavery - Not in line with the capitalist view that everybody should be able to own property and have self-determination if they have enough mony.

Spanish Civil War - Fought between fascists and anarchists. Capitalist nations were recovering from WWI.

Starvation of the Poor and Fatness of the Rich - You already said Rich-poor gap. Saying the same list item twice is cheating.

Apartheid - Nothing to do with capitalism.

WW1 - Fought with the goal of territorial gain by the German government. Unrelated to ideological issues.

WW2 - The capitalist nations of WWII fought in self defence or out of compassion for other capitalist nations (UK, USA respectively)

Flanders - You already said WWI

Facism, Nazism - both government-glorifying anti-free-market ideologies, incompatible with and unrelated to capitalism.

Militarism - Unrelated to capitalism, an economic system with militarist or pacifist prequisites

Belsen - perpetrated by Nazis. You already said WWII

Hiroshima - Perpetrated by a capitalist nation OK. Not due to an inherent flaw in capitalist economics.

Dresden - We bombed them because they tried to invade our country and turn us into Nazis. You already said WWII

Racism - Nothing to do with capitalism. Racism precedes capitalism and is not particularly in compliance with the principles of capitalism.

The Mafia - Criminals, not acting in compliance with capitalist law. Mafias and crime can exist in any system.

Nukes - The USSR and the USA tested nuclear weapons essentially simultaneously.

Mcarthyism - During the cold war the USA witch-hunted communists and the USSR witch-hunted capitalists. Both were stupid.

Blacklists - what?

Lynchings - which?

The arms race - the USSR caused the arms race just as much as the USA did. Both powers immediately seized German rocket scientists at the close of WWII without knowledge of the other doing so.

Death Penalty - What does this have to do with capitalism?

"50,000,000 deaths and executions of Communists and trade unionists in the last century alone..." - Yeah right. Source please
[/QUOTE]

I agree that capitalism is a pretty crap system, but you're just scapegoating here. I did not respond to the points I felt you were correct on. I reckon that gave you about 10 points tops.

Dude... yeh cos thats really Left wing to go kill people.
Yeeh he had SOME good policies but most were crap.
Banning hunting for example... makes you wonder if he was as insane as people claim.

<cough>USSR</cough>

My source is Stalin's Apology speech. ;p "When you all apologise for this, i will apologise for socialism."

<cough>USSR</cough>

... Your a republican arent u. i can smell it from here.

Oh please. I'm not a raving capitalist but half of these are just bull.

Hitler - Yeah, capitalists and communists joined forces to defeat this Fascist nutjob.

Bush - I think most his retarded policies stem from religion, not economics.

Armenian Genocide - Wasn't the Ottoman Empire in the 1910's just a militaristic aristocracy populated mainly by peasant farmers? They surely were not industrial capitalists.

Colonialism - No bed of roses, but started around the 1600's, long before the industrial revolution and the dawn of capitalism.

Slavery - Not in line with the capitalist view that everybody should be able to own property and have self-determination if they have enough mony.

Spanish Civil War - Fought between fascists and anarchists. Capitalist nations were recovering from WWI.

Starvation of the Poor and Fatness of the Rich - You already said Rich-poor gap. Saying the same list item twice is cheating.

Apartheid - Nothing to do with capitalism.

WW1 - Fought with the goal of territorial gain by the German government. Unrelated to ideological issues.

WW2 - The capitalist nations of WWII fought in self defence or out of compassion for other capitalist nations (UK, USA respectively)

Flanders - You already said WWI

Facism, Nazism - both government-glorifying anti-free-market ideologies, incompatible with and unrelated to capitalism.

Militarism - Unrelated to capitalism, an economic system with militarist or pacifist prequisites

Belsen - perpetrated by Nazis. You already said WWII

Hiroshima - Perpetrated by a capitalist nation OK. Not due to an inherent flaw in capitalist economics.

Dresden - We bombed them because they tried to invade our country and turn us into Nazis. You already said WWII

Racism - Nothing to do with capitalism. Racism precedes capitalism and is not particularly in compliance with the principles of capitalism.

The Mafia - Criminals, not acting in compliance with capitalist law. Mafias and crime can exist in any system.

Nukes - The USSR and the USA tested nuclear weapons essentially simultaneously.

Mcarthyism - During the cold war the USA witch-hunted communists and the USSR witch-hunted capitalists. Both were stupid.

Blacklists - what?

Lynchings - which?

The arms race - the USSR caused the arms race just as much as the USA did. Both powers immediately seized German rocket scientists at the close of WWII without knowledge of the other doing so.

Death Penalty - What does this have to do with capitalism?

"50,000,000 deaths and executions of Communists and trade unionists in the last century alone..." - Yeah right. Source please


I agree that capitalism is a pretty crap system, but you're just scapegoating here. I did not respond to the points I felt you were correct on. I reckon that gave you about 10 points tops.[/QUOTE]

And yet... people seemingly see NO problem with lumping all the OTHER problems with historical communists in with the communist ideal....

... Your a republican arent u. i can smell it from here.

No, I'm a German Imperialist.

Socialism and communism will never work because there's no incentive for technological advance, or even for people to work, and thus society collapses. End of story.

aside from the fact that that is trivially false, i fail to see what relation the rate of technological advancement has to societal collapse.

I agree that capitalism is a pretty crap system, but you're just scapegoating here. I did not respond to the points I felt you were correct on. I reckon that gave you about 10 points tops.

And yet... people seemingly see NO problem with lumping all the OTHER problems with historical communists in with the communist ideal....[/QUOTE]

My point exactly.

Cant't... hold... myself.
A. Experience.

B. Common sense.

As for your extensive list, I don't think you realise Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. Capitalism and democracy aren't mutually exclusive and actually work best together (as shown by all the Western countries). Actually, I can't find a Capitalist democracy which isn't reasonably well off or with a growing economy. If they aren't, then it's because they've only been so for a small period of time.

You also don't realise Hitler was Socialist (National Socialist, more exactly). He even adopted many Socialist measures (free holidays etc).


Communism isn't a political model, either. It's a production model. It is entirely possible to be a totalitarian capitalist, or a democratic communist.

Indeed - communo-anarchism is about as 'pure' a form of 'democracy' as one can get.

And yet... people seemingly see NO problem with lumping all the OTHER problems with historical communists in with the communist ideal....

My point exactly.[/QUOTE]

Help! Your quote is broken!

But, yes... I saw that was your point... I was just re-iterating.

aside from the fact that that is trivially false, i fail to see what relation the rate of technological advancement has to societal collapse.

Oh really? My uncle lives in Ukraine. Formerly Soviet Ukraine. He never worked and got payed as much as everybody who did. He also got free electricity, gas, etc. What happened to the Soviet Union? Remind me, I've forgotten.

*doesn't bother to read topic*

We've been through this a million times. Socialism and communism will never work because there's no incentive for technological advance, or even for people to work, and thus society collapses. End of story.

Two good points, hampered only by the fact that neither are true.

Oh really? My uncle lives in Ukraine. Formerly Soviet Ukraine. He never worked and got payed as much as everybody who did. He also got free electricity, gas, etc. What happened to the Soviet Union? Remind me, I've forgotten.

People like you make me sad, and present a good case for political genocide.

Communism isn't a political model, either. It's a production model. It is entirely possible to be a totalitarian capitalist, or a democratic communist.

Well, see, you know why there aren't any real democratic communist nations? Because people don't like communism. And if it's a democracy, they'll vote for the guy who promises to go CAPITALIST.

People like you make me sad, and present a good case for political genocide.

How many relatives do you have in ex-Soviet countries?

And yet... people seemingly see NO problem with lumping all the OTHER problems with historical communists in with the communist ideal....

You seem to be insinuating that I do this.

I do not need to lump "true communism" with the USSR and the PRC. I always try to attack the USSR and chums on their severe shortcomings and theoretical communism on its shortcomings seperately.

I know Chairman Mao and Stalin were not communists or capitalists. They were nutters.

It doesn't mean true communism sounds fun either.

Two good points, hampered only by the fact that neither are true.

See my other posts.

You seem to be insinuating that I do this.

I do not need to lump "true communism" with the USSR and the PRC. I always try to attack the USSR and chums on their severe shortcomings and theoretical communism on its shortcomings seperately.

I know Chairman Mao and Stalin were not communists or capitalists. They were nutters.

It doesn't mean true communism sounds fun either.

Your intelligent :D Your the only sort of Anti-COmmunist i can stand.
Not the idiots that go "Communism is bad cos they wanted to rule the world."
Whats that? (points) (kicks) (shoots in head)

People like you make me sad, and present a good case for political genocide.

That sounds like some sort of threat to his life. At the very least it's a very horrible thing to say.

That sounds like some sort of threat to his life. At the very least it's a very horrible thing to say.

Especially since I was right.

Either way, I think it's a bad comment, because anyone who opposes communism is on the right track in my book, even if they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Your intelligent :D Your the only sort of Anti-COmmunist i can stand.

I'm glad you can stand me, but your verbal abuse of Kievan-Prussia (who I assume you cannot stand) is wholly inappropriate.

As a fellow intelligent person, I advise you that personal attacks diminish your viability as a debater and convincer.

Meh. Apologies.
Got riled up.
I just dont like right-wingers is all.
ESPECIALLY ones who confuse USSR with communism they make me really really reallly ticked.

Meh. Apologies.
Got riled up.
I just dont like right-wingers is all.
ESPECIALLY ones who confuse USSR with communism they make me really really reallly ticked.

The USSR was communist. Pro-communists just pretend it wasn't because it makes communist look bad. Which would be a problem if communism wasn't bad.

Also, I'm a bit of a social left-winger. Government-wise, I'm more right-wing.

Meh. Apologies.
Got riled up.
I just dont like right-wingers is all.
ESPECIALLY ones who confuse USSR with communism they make me really really reallly ticked.

Yes, that's ok. Remember, if you start talking about how you want to kill capitalists, you are stooping to the level of McCarthy too. Ideologues from both sides are pretty much as bad as eachother.

Also remember that the thought process those right-wingers use to lump the USSR with communism is the same one you use to lump pre-industrial colonialism etc. with capitalism.

Oh really? My uncle lives in Ukraine. Formerly Soviet Ukraine. He never worked and got payed as much as everybody who did. He also got free electricity, gas, etc. What happened to the Soviet Union? Remind me, I've forgotten.

He got paid? See the problem?

What happened to the Soviet Union? Opinions differ... some claim that the Soviet Union collapsed because of the Pope. Some claim that the Soviet Union collapsed because of Reagan. Some claim that the Soviet Union collapsed because it was too big for centralisation to hold together. Some claim that the Soviet Union collapsed because capitalist countries out-produced' it.


However, if one really looks closely at what killed the Soviet Union, you find something you might not expect.

The biggest contributing factor was almost certainly Organised Crime. It's a complex story, and it pre-dates Stalin, but Stalin didn't help it any.

Under the Tsarist regimes, the Tsar owned everything. Thus - to take something was to rebel against the Tsar. Look at your Russian history... pre-revolutionary history is filled with Robin Hood style 'robber heroes', who stole from the rich (the Tsar) and gave to the poor.

With the introduction of communism (but it would have happened under capitalism, too), the entire sub-class of 'gentleman thieves' became either regular citizens, or remained thieves. Those who REMAINED thieves, were now enemies of the people, and enemies of the state.

So - huge numbers of those former heroes, became prisoners in Russia's penal system. They violently opposed guards, etc. because guards are the establishment, and the gentlemen thieves opposed the establishment... no matter WHO the establishment was.

So - what did Stalin do wrong? He granted conditional pardons to huge numbers of the prisoners, in exchange for them agreeing to military service. Sounds like a good idea, and it was... except that Stalin reneged on the deal when the prisoners returned from war.

Instead, they were sent back to jail... now, not only enemies of 'the state', but also (paradoxically) CONSPIRATORS WITH the state (in the eyes of the other 'gentleman thieves').

Thus, Stalin sparked a 'civil war' within the prison system (known as the "Bitch Wars") where the two factions fought violently (and mortally).

What was LEFT, after the 'bitch wars', were a class of extremely violent, extremely partisan criminals... who had learned a wealth of criminal skills from each other, and had - more importantly - learned how to be both ruthless, and VERY adaptable.

In comparison to the Russian organised crime franchises, Cosa Nostra are a picture of predictablity, and are relatively small-fry.

The Russian Mob made it almost impossible for adequate supplies to be transferred from point to point, and capitalised on the shortfalls. They 'owned' huge numbers of party officials, and their corruption meant that the Soviet Union ground to a halt.

It was that corruption that paralysed the administration and production of the state, that enabled the Black Market to be such big business... and it was that Black Market that enabled the Mob to 'recruit' ever more of the administration... until the Mob effectively strangled 'Communist' Russia to death.

Those SAME forces are still at work in capitalist Russia... people should research the effects organised crime are STILL having on that nation.



Here endeth the lesson.

He got paid? See the problem?

What happened to the Soviet Union? Opinions differ... some claim that the Soviet Union collapsed because of the Pope. Some claim that the Soviet Union collapsed because of Reagan. Some claim that the Soviet Union collapsed because it was too big for centralisation to hold together. Some claim that the Soviet Union collapsed because capitalist countries out-produced' it.


However, if one really looks closely at what killed the Soviet Union, you find something you might not expect.

The biggest contributing factor was almost certainly Organised Crime. It's a complex story, and it pre-dates Stalin, but Stalin didn't help it any.

Under the Tsarist regimes, the Tsar owned everything. Thus - to take something was to rebel against the Tsar. Look at your Russian history... pre-revolutionary history is filled with Robin Hood style 'robber heroes', who stole from the rich (the Tsar) and gave to the poor.

With the introduction of communism (but it would have happened under capitalism, too), the entire sub-class of 'gentleman thieves' became either regular citizens, or remained thieves. Those who REMAINED thieves, were now enemies of the people, and enemies of the state.

So - huge numbers of those former heroes, became prisoners in Russia's penal system. They violently opposed guards, etc. because guards are the establishment, and the gentlemen thieves opposed the establishment... no matter WHO the establishment was.

So - what did Stalin do wrong? He granted conditional pardons to huge numbers of the prisoners, in exchange for them agreeing to military service. Sounds like a good idea, and it was... except that Stalin reneged on the deal when the prisoners returned from war.

Instead, they were sent back to jail... now, not only enemies of 'the state', but also (paradoxically) CONSPIRATORS WITH the state (in the eyes of the other 'gentleman thieves').

Thus, Stalin sparked a 'civil war' within the prison system (known as the "Bitch Wars") where the two factions fought violently (and mortally).

What was LEFT, after the 'bitch wars', were a class of extremely violent, extremely partisan criminals... who had learned a wealth of criminal skills from each other, and had - more importantly - learned how to be both ruthless, and VERY adaptable.

In comparison to the Russian organised crime franchises, Cosa Nostra are a picture of predictablity, and are relatively small-fry.

The Russian Mob made it almost impossible for adequate supplies to be transferred from point to point, and capitalised on the shortfalls. They 'owned' huge numbers of party officials, and their corruption meant that the Soviet Union ground to a halt.

It was that corruption that paralysed the administration and production of the state, that enabled the Black Market to be such big business... and it was that Black Market that enabled the Mob to 'recruit' ever more of the administration... until the Mob effectively strangled 'Communist' Russia to death.

Those SAME forces are still at work in capitalist Russia... people should research the effects organised crime are STILL having on that nation.



Here endeth the lesson.

A stirring lesson and interesting viewpoint. But you completely overlook the impossibility of communism. As long as a government tries to eradicate rational self-interest and destroys its people's freedom, it will undoubtedly crumble.

Here endeth the lesson.

A stirring lesson and interesting viewpoint. But you completely overlook the impossibility of communism. As long as a government tries to eradicate rational self-interest and destroys its people's freedom, it will undoubtedly crumble.

A stirring lesson and interesting viewpoint. But you completely overlook the impossibility of communism. As long as a government tries to eradicate rational self-interest and destroys its people's freedom, it will undoubtedly crumble.

... Dude he just explained why it collapsed? whats wrong with you? you STILL dont see that it wasnt because of that the USSR collapsed...

He got paid? See the problem?

What happened to the Soviet Union? Opinions differ... some claim that the Soviet Union collapsed because of the Pope. Some claim that the Soviet Union collapsed because of Reagan. Some claim that the Soviet Union collapsed because it was too big for centralisation to hold together. Some claim that the Soviet Union collapsed because capitalist countries out-produced' it.


However, if one really looks closely at what killed the Soviet Union, you find something you might not expect.

The biggest contributing factor was almost certainly Organised Crime. It's a complex story, and it pre-dates Stalin, but Stalin didn't help it any.

Under the Tsarist regimes, the Tsar owned everything. Thus - to take something was to rebel against the Tsar. Look at your Russian history... pre-revolutionary history is filled with Robin Hood style 'robber heroes', who stole from the rich (the Tsar) and gave to the poor.

With the introduction of communism (but it would have happened under capitalism, too), the entire sub-class of 'gentleman thieves' became either regular citizens, or remained thieves. Those who REMAINED thieves, were now enemies of the people, and enemies of the state.

So - huge numbers of those former heroes, became prisoners in Russia's penal system. They violently opposed guards, etc. because guards are the establishment, and the gentlemen thieves opposed the establishment... no matter WHO the establishment was.

So - what did Stalin do wrong? He granted conditional pardons to huge numbers of the prisoners, in exchange for them agreeing to military service. Sounds like a good idea, and it was... except that Stalin reneged on the deal when the prisoners returned from war.

Instead, they were sent back to jail... now, not only enemies of 'the state', but also (paradoxically) CONSPIRATORS WITH the state (in the eyes of the other 'gentleman thieves').

Thus, Stalin sparked a 'civil war' within the prison system (known as the "Bitch Wars") where the two factions fought violently (and mortally).

What was LEFT, after the 'bitch wars', were a class of extremely violent, extremely partisan criminals... who had learned a wealth of criminal skills from each other, and had - more importantly - learned how to be both ruthless, and VERY adaptable.

In comparison to the Russian organised crime franchises, Cosa Nostra are a picture of predictablity, and are relatively small-fry.

The Russian Mob made it almost impossible for adequate supplies to be transferred from point to point, and capitalised on the shortfalls. They 'owned' huge numbers of party officials, and their corruption meant that the Soviet Union ground to a halt.

It was that corruption that paralysed the administration and production of the state, that enabled the Black Market to be such big business... and it was that Black Market that enabled the Mob to 'recruit' ever more of the administration... until the Mob effectively strangled 'Communist' Russia to death.

Those SAME forces are still at work in capitalist Russia... people should research the effects organised crime are STILL having on that nation.



Here endeth the lesson.


Deja vu. I actually read that today. Sorry dude, you were two hours late to teach me a lesson :D

Also, my dad always told me the USSR collapsed because it went broke trying to keep up with the US...

Well, see, you know why there aren't any real democratic communist nations? Because people don't like communism. And if it's a democracy, they'll vote for the guy who promises to go CAPITALIST.

What about Portugal? What about Venezuela? What about Bolivia?

What about Portugal? What about Venezuela? What about Bolivia?

Dont forget the UK! (vote commies 2016...)

What about Portugal? What about Venezuela? What about Bolivia?

As far as I know, none of those nations ever had a planned economy. Then again, I don't know very far.

Deja vu. I actually read that today. Sorry dude, you were two hours late to teach me a lesson :D


Well... Good! It's an important little snippet of history that has been largely overlooked... and it is especially relevent because those same Russian Mobsters are now in the rest of the world, looking for more lucrative prey.

The US is a big target at the moment, although there seems to be a strange curtain of silence about the whole thing... but the US is not the ONLY target.

I'm glad other people are learning about the significance of the Russian Mob.


Also, my dad always told me the USSR collapsed because it went broke trying to keep up with the US...

Yes. And my grandma told me that you could stop yourself getting infections from dogbites, by rubbing the hair of the same dog, in the wound.

What our elders tell us, is not ALWAYS one hundred percent true... although it may LOOK like it to them.

A stirring lesson and interesting viewpoint. But you completely overlook the impossibility of communism. As long as a government tries to eradicate rational self-interest and destroys its people's freedom, it will undoubtedly crumble.

Communism, in it's truest form, would not need to 'eradicte' self-interest... it merely subverts it to collective interest.

We do the same thing in our everyday capitalist lives... we subvert the 'self-interest' of the single male or female, into the 'collective interest' of the couple.

Similarly - communism need not destroy any 'freedoms'. You can be a perfectly liberal and progressive society, with electoral freedom, and democratic representation... and use the communist production model.

Looking at Stalin's version of Communism will always be deceptive... Stalin removed freedoms because he was an autocrat... not because of communism.