NationStates Jolt Archive

Communistic ideals are egalitarian. If the government doesn't seek egalitarian ideals, it is not a communism.

And no, you are saying that anything called a rose is a rose, regardless of smell.

Again says who? Who has the authortiy to say that communism has to be egalitarian? I'm saying that all definitions are based on human constructs, the international code of zoological nomenclature says that we a Homo sapien. So you can say I am a Homo sapien according to the ICZN but i cannot say that it is an absolute as it is an arbitrary definition ie a human construct.

I have no problem with people saying that communism according to (blank) is this or that, but you cannot absolutely define it and hence anyone can call something communist and create their own definition and according to their definition it is communism. There is no overall definition of communism because there are many different interpretations, approaches and models so you cannot simply dismiss nations like China, USSR etc as not being communist absolutely you can only dismiss them relative to the definition you use.

Again says who? Who has the authortiy to say that communism has to be egalitarian? I'm saying that all definitions are based on human constructs
Of course, all definitions are human constructs but holding to the most common definition is the most rational course. The most common definition is the basic "community ownership of the means of production" but underlying that definition is an egalitarian motive.
I have no problem with people saying that communism according to (blank) is this or that, but you cannot absolutely define it and hence anyone can call something communist and create their own definition and according to their definition it is communism. There is no overall definition of communism because there are many different interpretations, approaches and models
I doubt any communist would disagree with "community ownership of the means of production" as a basic definition.
so you cannot simply dismiss nations like China, USSR etc as not being communist absolutely you can only dismiss them relative to the definition you use.
I can dismiss the USSR on the basic definition that I gave above.

Again says who? Who has the authortiy to say that communism has to be egalitarian? I'm saying that all definitions are based on human constructs, the international code of zoological nomenclature says that we a Homo sapien. So you can say I am a Homo sapien according to the ICZN but i cannot say that it is an absolute as it is an arbitrary definition ie a human construct.

I always think of Humpty Dumpty when someone claims that words can be defined arbitrarily regardless of the common definition. :D
'There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.' Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

The problem is that no one has proven that all forms of communism cannot work in reality. In fact, it is impossible to prove that since at least an early form of communism existed in some indigenous tribes in North America.

You might have an argument if you claim that "most forms of communism cannot work in an industrial world" but instead you make a general statement "communism cannot work in reality."

I am not a communist but I value intellectual honesty and your claims seem to disregard a lot of the history and philosophy of communism.


Actually, I didn't say it cannot work at all, but I did say reality, because in reality, the scenarios in which Communism can work do not actually exist and/or cannot be made to exist. In my first or second post on this thread, I said there is one SMALL chance of any form of communism working, but it's not really communism as you understand it--that is, in very small groups and kinship circles--namely, the family and extended family structure. Society is not that.

It's quite obvious that you are talking about communism in am modern society, not some primitive bush society. It cannot work in reality--that is, our social reality. It might work if we break homo sapiens up into a bunch of small, roving primtive societies spread to the wind, but that's not realistic, as I said. Communism may only work if you contort reality and reinvent society. Most forms don't work no matter what you do, but the forms that do work do not work in any realistic scenario anymore. Tribal primitivism is not reality: it's a fantasy option.

Technically, the family sometimes works off of a pseudo communal vibe. Reality, however, dicates that that cannot extent to society. It is not reality that society is one big happy family either.

------



Estado Libre wrote:

Actually, the quotes were used for two reasons:

1) Since I'm not a communist, I wanted to adequately represent the views of some famous communists/socialists.

2) To demonstrate that your view of communism is narrow since it ignores whole schools of communism.

Nevertheless, even if I was appealing to authority, I summarized each point I was making after each quote. You could have ignored the quotes and just read my comments but, instead of responding rationally, you just claim "appealing to their authority" without any response to my actual points.


My response was rational. Your response was merely name-dropping appeals to authority that had no real argument behind it. I made a point, you countered with 12 name drop instances. Mentioning a fallacious premise in the argument presented to me is not irrational.

That's not a valid tactic.

It's irrelevant what school of communism you wanted to show me. None of them work. Period. All forms are totalitarian in practice.

And someone mentioned this: A theory is judged on both
As it referred to a theory being judged on fantasy-world vs real world success. Again, no, it's not. A theory is worthless if it's good in the abstract but worthless, like Communism, in reality.
[/quote]

Bozzy wrote:

Umm, no. The government participates in considerable charity and everyone knows that - except you and apparently yo momma. And if you are going to try turning around my semantics argument at least keep it on the same point I used for you - the meaning of 'people of limited means'.
:

While I agree with much of your argument, this technically isn't correct if you are referring to government programmes. Charity, by definition, must be an action that is voluntary and uncoerced. You are forced to give taxes to a government that gives them to someone else as payment. THat's not charity, unless you willingly do it free of coersion.

It is not considered charity for one to give money to someone else by taking it from someone else who does not wish it to be taken.

This is not to say I am against government welfare at all. It's just not actually charity, and to try to contort it to be so is dishonest. The money is not free of coersion and voluntarily given for ameliorative purpouses. It's forced. Try refusing to give money to this "charity" and you will soon find yourself in trouble.

It's quite obvious that you are talking about communism in am modern society, not some primitive bush society. It cannot work in reality--that is, our social reality. It might work if we break homo sapiens up into a bunch of small, roving primtive societies spread to the wind, but that's not realistic, as I said. Communism may only work if you contort reality and reinvent society.

Actually, when I talk about communism, I'm usually talking about it as a theory not tied to modern society. This is probably because of my interest in anthropology (e.g., communism of the Inca).


My response was rational. Your response was merely name-dropping appeals to authority that had no real argument behind it. I made a point, you countered with 12 name drop instances. Mentioning a fallacious premise in the argument presented to me is not irrational.

That's not a valid tactic.
If I had posted the quotes without actually making points, I could see your problem. Nonetheless, that is not what happened. As I said, you "could have ignored the quotes and just read my comments" and still got my point.

To make this simpler (since it seems you didn't understand my point), the quotes from famous socialists were listed as illustration of real communist thought on certain issues (e.g., Emma Goldman thought this) and not as appeals to authority (e.g., Emma Goldman thought this so it must be true).

Misapplying logical fallacies, especially after I explained my reasons for the quotes, does not inspire confidence in your rationality.


It's irrelevant what school of communism you wanted to show me. None of them work. Period. All forms are totalitarian in practice.
And this is my problem with your arguments. They are full of universal statements that are wrong at a historical level (e.g., the Incas and other indigenous people in the Americas had communistic systems that worked) and a philosophical level (e.g., anarcho-communism doesn't rely on coercion).

Communism may only work if you contort reality and reinvent society. Most forms don't work no matter what you do, but the forms that do work do not work in any realistic scenario anymore.


And even if going agains't all historical evidence and human self interest and a communist country is formed. Would a country with no economic freedoms and no ladder to climb be a desirable one. I think not. It actually ammazes me the ammount of communist discussion on this forum, before I came here I thought it was as dead of an ideology as fascism.

Again says who? Who has the authortiy to say that communism has to be egalitarian? I'm saying that all definitions are based on human constructs, the international code of zoological nomenclature says that we a Homo sapien. So you can say I am a Homo sapien according to the ICZN but i cannot say that it is an absolute as it is an arbitrary definition ie a human construct.

I have no problem with people saying that communism according to (blank) is this or that, but you cannot absolutely define it and hence anyone can call something communist and create their own definition and according to their definition it is communism. There is no overall definition of communism because there are many different interpretations, approaches and models so you cannot simply dismiss nations like China, USSR etc as not being communist absolutely you can only dismiss them relative to the definition you use.

You wish to destroy language just to prove that Stalin was truly communist?

And even if going agains't all historical evidence and human self interest and a communist country is formed. Would a country with no economic freedoms and no ladder to climb be a desirable one. I think not.
Even if going against the historical evidence about capitalism and human social instincts, a capitalist country was formed. Would a country with no guaranteed social freedoms and no safety net be a desirable one?
It actually ammazes me the ammount of communist discussion on this forum, before I came here I thought it was as dead of an ideology as fascism.There are actually communist parties in some countries! :)

Actually, when I talk about communism, I'm usually talking about it as a theory not tied to modern society. This is probably because of my interest in anthropology (e.g., communism of the Inca...the Incas and other indigenous people in the Americas had communistic systems that worked).

I think the definition of communism is agreed on by most people: "community ownership of the means of production."


Both statements are true, but simplistic, which is understandable in a public forum message board.

Yes, one possible definition of ancient Incan society could be communism, as well as the early Christian societies of the Apostles or the societies envisioned in Plato's The Republic and Thomas More's Utopia. Some people make communist ties to religious groups such as the Shakers, Quakers, and a group of English radicals during the English Civil War called the Diggers. Several 19th century utopian socialist could also lay claim to proto-communist leanings. Hell, you could stretch the point further and claim early hunter-gatherers were also communist.

However, though each of these has elements in common with modern communism, none is in fact true communism, which goes beyond the definition of "community ownership." Modern communist theory, developed by Marx and Engels, has been expanded upon by Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, and Stalin in Russia, Castro in Cuba, Tito in Yugoslavia, Mao in China, Kim Il-Sung in North Korea, and Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam.

You cannot ignore their contributions to communist ideology simply because the philosophy is now different than the one used by ancient Incas, which was never developed as a formal political or economic system.

Even if going against the historical evidence about capitalism and human social instincts, a capitalist country was formed. Would a country with no guaranteed social freedoms and no safety net be a desirable one?

Unlike communism I'm not an extreme and I'm flexible. If investing in some welfare, job centers, education provides more skilled able workforce which return the initial investment in taxes and higher culture (which I do believe happens) than I fully support such "socialist" measures.


There are actually communist parties in some countries! :)

There are still fascist parties across the world. Which in fact do better in England than any communist/social democratic parties (mainly since they don't exist ;) )

However, though each of these has elements in common with modern communism, none is in fact true communism, which goes beyond the definition of "community ownership." Modern communist theory, developed by Marx and Engels, has been expanded upon by Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, and Stalin in Russia, Castro in Cuba, Tito in Yugoslavia, Mao in China, Kim Il-Sung in North Korea, and Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam.

You cannot ignore their contributions to communist ideology simply because the philosophy is now different than the one used by ancient Incas, which they never developed as a formal political or economic system.
The point you seem to be making is about the difference between communism and Communism (with a capital C).

The Columbia Encyclopedia (http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/communism.html) claims that communism refers to "community ownership" whereas Communism refers to "the movement that aims to overthrow the capitalist order by revolutionary means and to establish a classless society in which all goods will be socially owned. The theories of the movement come from Karl Marx, as modified by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, leader of the successful Communist revolution in Russia."

I'm usually focused on communism (without the Marx/Lenin connection) since it is more interesting to me. :)

Unlike communism I'm not an extreme and I'm flexible. If investing in some welfare, job centers, education provides more skilled able workforce which return the initial investment in taxes and higher culture (which I do believe happens) than I fully support such "socialist" measures. From my perspective, mixed economies seem to be the best bet. Then, people will fight over what mixture? :)

From my perspective, mixed economies seem to be the best bet. Then, people will fight over what mixture? :)

Exacly. Thats all I see politics as anyway, how mixed do you want it. But nope, any ownership or prive enterprise is "irrademable" for capitalists.

All of the above are communist in name only. Not in nature


ROFLMAO!

Yes, and the Spanish inquisiton was Catholic in name only too. So?

So then you support wealth redistribution in order to maintain a certain desirable standard of living? How decidedly socialistic of you.

First of all - welfare is not exactly what I would call maintaining a desireable standard of living...

Second of all - Capitalism is not anarchy - there are many government programs which capitalists have no trouble with which have nothing to do with capitalism or any other form of economics. You hare having difficulty with the concept that an economy can be seperate from a goovernment.

ROFLMAO!

Yes, and the Spanish inquisiton was Catholic in name only too. So?

I have a funny feeling those terrorists have nothing to do with Islam either.

I think your definition was fine. I just had a problem with calling it leftist. It is more a combination of left and right wing tendencies (with a right wing lean).

The Columbia Encyclopedia (http://www.bartleby.com/65/fa/fascism.html) gives 3 primary characteristics of fascism:
1) subordination of the individual to the state
2) imperialism and aggressive militarism
3) elitism and hierarchy

It goes on to say that:
While socialism (particularly Marxism) came into existence as a clearly formulated theory or program based on a specific interpretation of history, fascism introduced no systematic exposition of its ideology or purpose other than a negative reaction against socialist and democratic egalitarianism.

It depends on how you define "left wing" and "right wing" but I always assume socialism and democratic egalitarianism are left wing. So, fascism which glorifies a class hierarchy seems to contradict most leftist thought.

(By the way, the other 2 traits (i.e., glorified state, imperialism) can appear in left or right wing theories in my opinion.)


That's the point I was making. :) Fascism (like populism on the Nolan chart) combines left and right principles of statism.

1) subordination of the individual to the state
2) imperialism and aggressive militarism
3) elitism and hierarchy

I dunno - sounds pretty descriptive of nearly all states which have ever called themselves communists...

Communistic ideals are egalitarian. If the government doesn't seek egalitarian ideals, it is not a communism.

And no, you are saying that anything called a rose is a rose, regardless of smell.

Ahhh, so the dozens of attempts at communisn all failed because the wrong people tried it. What fools.... :rolleyes:

I have a funny feeling those terrorists have nothing to do with Islam either.

If that were true then the Islamic world would not be quite so sympathetic to them - Especially not enough to elect them the heads of a state!

If that were true then the Islamic world would not be quite so sympathetic to them - Especially not enough to elect them the heads of a state!

If it were true that the we haven't had true communism mabey the communist world would not have been so sympathetic to them. Especially not enough to side with the soviets/china/vietnam/cuba over the west.

First of all - welfare is not exactly what I would call maintaining a desireable standard of living...

Then what is it?

Second of all - Capitalism is not anarchy - there are many government programs which capitalists have no trouble with which have nothing to do with capitalism or any other form of economics. You hare having difficulty with the concept that an economy can be seperate from a goovernment.

What are you talking about?

Welfare is government intervention into the economy, it is an economic policy. When we are referring to welfare, it is impossible to separate government from the economy.

There is nothing wrong with communism in theory, but practically it is impossible.
Right. The idea itself is good, but remember "if everyone is equal, everyone is miserable."

its impossible for communism to work because all people are lazy once all becomes one. i mean seriously if you were a rocket scientist getting paid the same amount as a dumbass kid that flips burgers, would u want to try? my point exactly. :sniper:

If I had posted the quotes without actually making points, I could see your problem. Nonetheless, that is not what happened. As I said, you "could have ignored the quotes and just read my comments" and still got my point.

I saw the comments. They are merely paraphrases and extensions of what emma and oscar wild and some other guy said. Even accepting your quotes, your "commentary" was just a rehash of incorrect statements like "it's just the status quo, there is no human nature!" You build off of the assumption that humans are infinitly malleable organisms--pure tabula rasas.

Commuist apologists fall short insofar as they come up with these really cool sounding, but misconceived schemes of social engineering that border on brainwashing. Even then, it doesn't work. If people are the problem in the equation when it comes to your theory, it is the theory that is wrong. Not the people. Karl Marx said it is humanity that must change. That's not only absurdly difficult to do, there is only so much one can do. It's not the status quo that's in the way, regardless of what Goldman thinks. Humans, like many other animals (and that's just what we are, animals) have intrinsic behavior characteristics that are a product of our cognitive development. We are, to an extent, malleable, but not infinitly. Humans ARE largely selfish creatures, except when it comes to small, tight kinship groups. We tend to be far more communal in these cases and express our social natures. We do have some room for altruistic behavior, which is largely a hold over from evolution as a tribal organism. The key is to harness that to the small extent that you can, but not the extent you are thinking.

To say that human nature is simply whatever stimuli we can throw at people to change them is wrong. That's Skinnerism gone wild.

And this is my problem with your arguments. They are full of universal statements that are wrong at a historical level (e.g., the Incas and other indigenous people in the Americas had communistic systems that worked) and a philosophical level (e.g., anarcho-communism doesn't rely on coercion).

They are hardly wrong. You just keep creating these "examples" of societies you are tryin to fit into your modern conception of what Communism is, like others here have said already. That's a problem with Communist Apologists: they keep molding and contorting definitions to fit their agendas. Nothing's "true communism" unless it suits their definition. When you find something wrong with it, they switch to another defintion. I mentioned some forms of communalism work. Remember the kinship and familial groups? It works in small societies with tight bonds It so happens they usually are fairly small, primitive tribal societies. They cannot operate in a modern industrial society. They will be and usually are, thrust by the wayside because they promote weak, inefficient economic systems. You would have to radically destroy culture and return it to some type of backwater agrarian tribal system for it to work. I'd rather not do that. THat's not a "working" system by modern standards. Perhaps stone age standards, yes.

Anarcho-communism claims it won't rely on coersion, but anarchism is a shitty form of social governance. It relies on fantasy as well in which no one needs a government with authority because everyone live their lives happy and hunky dory with one another. This isn't realistic. It too has failed, quite often. One example is the "fruitlands" experiment. Everyone nearly starved since no one was willing to actually work for the greater good and they had no government to enforce anything. In the end, it devolved, in desperation, into a few people taking the lead and dictating what everyone would do.

Anarchism devolves into dictatorships and petty warlordism. Take Somalia for example. Anarchic communism is basically anarchism with the fantastical hope that people will not devolve into warlordism by the sheer virtue of their own kindness and desire to live in harmony working together. Doesn't work. Leads easily to totalitarian leadership.

In Marxism, it's totalitarian from the get go. In anarchistic libertarian socialism, it's so unrealistic in its aims, that it leads to the former totalitarianism anyway for want of order.

And even if going agains't all historical evidence and human self interest and a communist country is formed. Would a country with no economic freedoms and no ladder to climb be a desirable one. I think not. It actually ammazes me the ammount of communist discussion on this forum, before I came here I thought it was as dead of an ideology as fascism.

I can't figure it out either. Now, I am a social democrat, but I don't delude myself into believing communism is realistic. I also don't buy the dubious arguments that we have to change society to fit the theory. That, by itself, is absurd.

A theory of operation which neither reflects reality NOR works in reality is not a good theory, but people are trying to argue it is. Imagine a physicist comming up with a theory that doesn't work and doesn't reflect reality, but then turning around and saying "well, it works on paper!" It must obviously be the laws of physics that are wrong and not the theory.


I also think it's downright hilarious that, whenver they are faced with unpleasant consequences of communist theory, they claim it's not "true communism." If that's not the textbook definition of a no true scotsman, then blow me down.

Then what is it?
Welfare is public assistance to the very needy. It provides for only the most basic of essentials - and only barely so. IT most certainly does not maintain what most people would consider a 'desireable standard of living' nor should it. It also is not an 'infusion' into an economy. When it was reformed in the late 90s (resluting lin much lower welfare spending) it had no impact on the economy - though it had a tremendous impact on poverty - reducing it by about 1/3rd. I posted a source to that on another thread about a month ago - I can dig it up if you really want - but I don't think it is that hard to find.


What are you talking about?

Welfare is government intervention into the economy, it is an economic policy. When we are referring to welfare, it is impossible to separate government from the economy.

As I just said - welfare is not government intervention in an economy - it is government intervention in a personal matter. You would make a better case that Greenspan and Bernacke ARE federal intervention into an economy. Welfare however has little to no impact on the US economy.

If it were true that the we haven't had true communism mabey the communist world would not have been so sympathetic to them. Especially not enough to side with the soviets/china/vietnam/cuba over the west.
huh? (http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/play/port_lofi.cfm?sound_iid=3433)

Welfare is public assistance to the very needy. It provides for only the most basic of essentials - and only barely so. IT most certainly does not maintain what most people would consider a 'desireable standard of living' nor should it.

I am pretty sure there is a fallacy where you play on semantics to say the same thing, yet make the statement seem to support your argument. You are doing that here.

In one hand, you are stating that welfare should provide for those bare essentials of life, in the other that it should not provide a basic standard of living. That is contradictory.


It also is not an 'infusion' into an economy.

It is impossible for government to reallocate any amount of money without interfering in economic processes.

When it was reformed in the late 90s (resluting lin much lower welfare spending) it had no impact on the economy - though it had a tremendous impact on poverty - reducing it by about 1/3rd.

How you can say a policy had no impact on the economy but had a tremendous impact on poverty is bewildering.

I posted a source to that on another thread about a month ago - I can dig it up if you really want - but I don't think it is that hard to find.[/QUOTE]

I would love to read it, dig it up if you find the time.

I am pretty sure there is a fallacy where you play on semantics to say the same thing, yet make the statement seem to support your argument. You are doing that here.

In one hand, you are stating that welfare should provide for those bare essentials of life, in the other that it should not provide a basic standard of living. That is contradictory.
There is a huge difference between a basic standard of living and bare essentials.

It is impossible for government to reallocate any amount of money without interfering in economic processes.
So, to carry your logic out to it's full conclusion; all government spending is socialist thus pure capitalism = anarchy. Sorry - I'm too smart to fall for that.

How you can say a policy had no impact on the economy but had a tremendous impact on poverty is bewildering. Exactly how has welfare done anything to reduce (or increase) poverty.

I would love to read it, dig it up if you find the time.
re: the source; NP, I'll find the thread and link it.

Ok heres the thing, Communism has never been done in practice, as Mao knows to achieve Communism you must pass through a period of Socialism.. No country has ever made it through this and I doubt they ever will so no one can say communism doesn't work, its just that it seems impossible to achieve.


(well.. maybe Mao doesn't seeing as he is dead.. can dead people 'know' stuff even though their brain has stopped working or has been eaten away by worms? er..)

No country has ever made it through this and I doubt they ever will so no one can say communism doesn't work, its just that it seems impossible to achieve.


"I can't get my car to start the engine won't run. I think my car doesn't work"

"Of course your car works. Its just impossible to start the engine"

There is a huge difference between a basic standard of living and bare essentials.

So, to carry your logic out to it's full conclusion; all government spending is socialist thus pure capitalism = anarchy. Sorry - I'm too smart to fall for that.
Exactly how has welfare done anything to reduce (or increase) poverty.

re: the source; NP, I'll find the thread and link it.


The welfare doesn't elmiminate poverty all together, but it ameliorates its symptoms.

There is a huge difference between a basic standard of living and bare essentials.

You are going to have to explain the difference to me.

So, to carry your logic out to it's full conclusion; all government spending is socialist thus pure capitalism = anarchy. Sorry - I'm too smart to fall for that.

Where did I say that a capitalism cannot have government intervention? There is quite a large amount of government spending that promotes our capitalist economy as well. That doesn't change the fact that any government investment, taxation, or expenditure will have an effect on the economy.

Exactly how has welfare done anything to reduce (or increase) poverty.

I don't know, I will know more if I see the study you are talking about.

What I do know, is that poverty is an economic factor, so if you have a great effect on poverty, you have an effect on the economy.

You are going to have to explain the difference to me.

A man getting by on just water and minimal food has the bare essentials to survive but we couldn't call that a basic standard of living.

[QUOTE=Vittos Ordination2]
Where did I say that a capitalism cannot have government intervention? There is quite a large amount of government spending that promotes our capitalist economy as well. That doesn't change the fact that any government investment, taxation, or expenditure will have an effect on the economy.
.

Well we all have mixed economys. government welfare, nationalisation of anything (roads, army, courts) this is mixed economy.



I don't know, I will know more if I see the study you are talking about.

What I do know, is that poverty is an economic factor, so if you have a great effect on poverty, you have an effect on the economy.

Indeed. If we have people go from 0 expendable income something higher than items aimed at that above poverty mark will likely get more demand and the economy will change. I've lost Bozzy on what ever point he's trying to make.

A man getting by on just water and minimal food has the bare essentials to survive but we couldn't call that a basic standard of living.

Even if that were the bare minimum B0zzy would want, that still meets my definition of a very basic standard of living. How would you define "standard of living?"

Well we all have mixed economys. government welfare, nationalisation of anything (roads, army, courts) this is mixed economy.

I agree, there is not a nation that exists completely on the private market or has all goods and resources collectively controlled.

But our governments also do a great deal to impose our capitalistic system.

Indeed. If we have people go from 0 expendable income something higher than items aimed at that above poverty mark will likely get more demand and the economy will change. I've lost Bozzy on what ever point he's trying to make.

I can believe B0zzy's claim that welfare actually increases poverty, as the taxation for it takes investment out of the GDP of a nation while increasing consumption. As there are less investment dollars for production to meet this rise in demand for goods, the Consumer Price Index will rise, in turn raising the poverty level, causing more individuals to fall under it.

Now, the only reason I posted that is to show the amount of economic factors that are affected by welfare.

But our governments also do a great deal to impose our capitalistic system.

Not that they have to. Capitalism arises naturally when people are left free to make their own decisions. That's sort of the basis of capitalism.

Not that they have to. Capitalism arises naturally when people are left free to make their own decisions. That's sort of the basis of capitalism.

I am not sold on that assumption, but I don't want to argue it, I will defer to a more astute poster.

I am not sold on that assumption, but I don't want to argue it, I will defer to a more astute poster.
Well, when they're acting with the organized framework of a civil society, that's what tends to happen, but when tossed into a random anarchic situation people tend to whack each other over the head with sticks until they develop a form of despotic hierarchy.

Well, when they're acting with the organized framework of a civil society, that's what tends to happen, but when tossed into a random anarchic situation people tend to whack each other over the head with sticks until they develop a form of despotic hierarchy.

How can you make that assumption?

<This is my first proper post on this forum so please don't bite off my head!>

Well I have heard plenty of people arguing for Communism, they have very influential speaches indeed.

But what sort of points make Capitalism better?


it takes away my freedom,period.

nuff said?

if not,well,consider this,everyone(myself included)despises bush,he is a joke compared to the past communist "leaders"

i know people say..well that was not true communism or socialism...and i would argue...yes it was,because someone has to be in charge,and inevitably,human nature takes over(you know..the whole lust for power,greed,selfishness thing)as it has in every occasion.
i dont want anyone to be above me in the day to day living of my life,hell i cant stand cops for that reason(but i realise we need some control,but i resent it anyway)seeing as i probably wouldnt hurt a fly even if their was no government.

i dont tell anyone what to do,and unless i am hurting you...go away.

at least in capitalism,you can quit your job,start a new company,be a bum,whatever.

add to the fact that a market driven economy seems to work pretty well,seeing as the ussr collapsed mostly in part from economic pressure..driven by a market economy.

either way...i'll take individual freedom(even in poverty)over limited freedom with some security.

"those that trade freedom for security,will get neither"

I would love to read it, dig it up if you find the time.

Found it;

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10888051&postcount=49

Well, when they're acting with the organized framework of a civil society, that's what tends to happen, but when tossed into a random anarchic situation people tend to whack each other over the head with sticks until they develop a form of despotic hierarchy.

Whacks Andaluciae over the head with a stick

nuh-uhh!

I am not sold on that assumption, but I don't want to argue it, I will defer to a more astute poster.
re: Capitalism arises naturally when people are left free to make their own decisions. That's sort of the basis of capitalism.

It was well said regardless of wo was tha author.

The only people who hate communism are the greedy people.

By communism, I mean true communism not the faux-communism of the USSR / China etc

Communism just doesn't work. It's a great theory, but people just wreck the whole thing.

The welfare doesn't elmiminate poverty all together, but it ameliorates its symptoms.


EXACTLY! Welfare does NOT PREVENT POVERTY! THAT is the point! There is a valid argument that too much welfare can protract or create poverty (the old teach a man to fish argument) but it does nothing to REDUCE poverty. Programs which DO reduce poverty include education, scholarships, small business loans, after school programs, business incentives in low income communities, heck, even law enforcement indirectly can.

WE could doublewelfare spending but it would do nothing to reduce poverty rates. We could cut welfare spending in half and it would not increase poverty rates. Therefore - Welfare has no measurable effect on an economy. No economy can 'welfare' themselves into prosperity.

You are going to have to explain the difference to me.
'poor' people in america enjoy the following;

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe.
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm)

That should clear up the different between basic standard of living and bare essentials.


Indeed. If we have people go from 0 expendable income something higher than items aimed at that above poverty mark will likely get more demand and the economy will change. I've lost Bozzy on what ever point he's trying to make.
The impact that has on consumption is so small as to be immeasurable. It is half (or less) compared to a person who not only consumes but also produces. Supply AND demand.

The only people who hate communism are the greedy people.

By communism, I mean true communism not the faux-communism of the USSR / China etc


LOL! Yes - selfish bastards don't know that the government knows what's best for them! Now quit talking and get back to work or its the GULAG for all of you! While you are working I'll go out and acquire what groceries I feel you are entitled to... You won't be getting greedy on my shift!

What's wrong with communism eh? On paper it sounds good but the ones who implement it will skew it according to their warped designs.

Only the fact that Capitalism hates it (Communism) so they spread propaganda and lies...

The only people who hate communism are the greedy people.

By communism, I mean true communism not the faux-communism of the USSR / China etc

The only people who like communism are lazy! :p Seriously some people just like living in a world where everything isn't handed to them. Where life is a challange and you have some responcibility for how your life pans out.

Only the fact that Capitalism hates it (Communism) so they spread propaganda and lies...

Yet we have the freedom of speech to openly discuss all aspects of socialism and communism in a public debate. How often is this liberty given in "communist" countries to discuss counter ideas.

Yet we have the freedom of speech to openly discuss all aspects of socialism and communism in a public debate. How often is this liberty given in "communist" countries to discuss counter ideas.

Not very often or never. But that is because if you give people such freedoms, their selfpreserving nature comes back to the surface again and takes over. Automatically resulting in re-introduction of a trade-based economy and profits for the self. This increased wealth leads to an increase of spare time which most people will use to further inform themselves. This in turn results into a desire for even greater freedoms. This process will continue, eventually leading to the collapse of the ruling governmental system - in the current case communism.

Of course, the leaders of a communist system have such selfpreservise desires as well, and they will of course not be snappy on giving away the power invested upon them. So the only option they have is to keep the people opressed.

Not very often or never. But that is because if you give people such freedoms, their selfpreserving nature comes back to the surface again and takes over. Automatically resulting in re-introduction of a trade-based economy and profits for the self. This increased wealth leads to an increase of spare time which most people will use to further inform themselves. This in turn results into a desire for even greater freedoms. This process will continue, eventually leading to the collapse of the ruling governmental system - in the current case communism.
.

Yeah how dare those people desire greater freedoms. Selfish!

Honestly. If you have to surpress opposing ideas and restrict freedom of thought/expression you have to admit the idea must be faulty. I'd have no problem with communism if in an open debate of ideas a certain group of people or a country adoppted it and gave people the right to leave if they wish. But that has and I doubt ever will happen.


Of course, the leaders of a communist system have such selfpreservise desires as well, and they will of course not be snappy on giving away the power invested upon them. So the only option they have is to keep the people opressed.

Looks like just another excuse to justify a new style of fascism.

that is because if you give people such freedoms, their selfpreserving nature comes back to the surface again and takes over. Automatically resulting in re-introduction of a trade-based economy and profits for the self. This increased wealth leads to an increase of spare time which most people will use to further inform themselves. This in turn results into a desire for even greater freedoms.

You don't honestly believe this do you? Increased free time and knowledge are bad?

Yet we have the freedom of speech to openly discuss all aspects of socialism and communism in a public debate. How often is this liberty given in "communist" countries to discuss counter ideas.
I dunno about other communist states, but in Yugoslavia everyone could say what they wanted as long as it wasn't: Long live Serbia/Croatia, Nazis were right, and Tito is an asshole. Other than that you could speak what you want about any other thing.

Yeah how dare those people desire greater freedoms. Selfish!

Honestly. If you have to surpress opposing ideas and restrict freedom of thought/expression you have to admit the idea must be faulty. I'd have no problem with communism if in an open debate of ideas a certain group of people or a country adoppted it and gave people the right to leave if they wish. But that has and I doubt ever will happen.

That is practically impossible with communism for the exact reasons I just posted. Socialism is a whole other thing though.


Looks like just another excuse to justify a new style of fascism.

Like there is any other excuse.


You don't honestly believe this do you? Increased free time and knowledge are bad?

I never said this were my ideals, or my ethical morals. I merely gave an explanation as to why a communist system must opress it's people in order to survive. If it doesn't, it collapses. Just take a look at the former USSR.

Seems to be working pretty well lately...Yes, in mixed economies, not capitalist economies.

Like Tsunami welfare - or Katrina welfare... In the case of that, it is referred to as 'aid', neither welfare nor charity.

That does not negate my point in any way whatsoever. If anything it reinforces it. Thanks.Uh, no, it doesn't reinforce your point. For instance I would say that capitalist countries are highly successful - highly successful in creating large amounts of poverty and misery and convincing these people that they're well off. I imagine, though, that you had a different use of the word in mind.

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/fascism
a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.
Sounds alot like communism to me!Of course it sounds like communism to you - you don't know what communism is.

'poor' people in america enjoy the following;Which goes to show not that America is where people can be prosperous, but where credit companies will continue to extend credit to people nearly indefinitely so they can buy things that they can't afford.

The system depicted in 1984 was not actual communism. Which is, of course, part of the point - George Orwell was no advocate of capitalism. See, say, Homage to Catalonia.

Orwell was an anti-communist democratic socialist.

Yes, in mixed economies, not capitalist economies.
.

Yes but mostly liberal mixed economys. Generally the more liberal the more successful and faster they grow
(US, Japan, S.Korea)


In the case of that, it is referred to as 'aid', neither welfare nor charity.
.
When the government gives "aid" to individuals with tax money I call it welfare.


Of course it sounds like communism to you - you don't know what communism is.
.

Sounds a lot like the Dictatorship of the proletariat to me. Thats what I never got about Marx. He claims the state is evil and will only create class divisions so therefore we should make the state as powerful as possible??:S


Which goes to show not that America is where people can be prosperous, but where credit companies will continue to extend credit to people nearly indefinitely so they can buy things that they can't afford.

I think acess to credit is hugely important. It gives people the power to set up their own business invest and prosper with less emphasis on the government having to do it via redistribution of wealth. If you choose to borrow money to buy a luxury item you have no method of affording well than you can take responcibility for that action.

Orwell was an anti-communist democratic socialist.Democratic socialism is a form of anarcho-communism.

Yes but mostly liberal mixed economys. Generally the more liberal the more successful and faster they grow
(US, Japan, S.Korea)I wonder how fast Japan and South Korea would have grown if not for the U.S. aid they received.

When the government gives "aid" to individuals with tax money I call it welfare. I don't have a problem with the idea of doing so; the point is that neither is charity, which we both agree on.

Sounds a lot like the Dictatorship of the proletariat to me. Thats what I never got about Marx. He claims the state is evil and will only create class divisions so therefore we should make the state as powerful as possible??:S<shrug> I don't claim to understand Marx, fortunately Marx was neither the creator nor does he have a monopoly on all of the forms of communism.

I think acess to credit is hugely important. It gives people the power to set up their own business invest and prosper with less emphasis on the government having to do it via redistribution of wealth. If you choose to borrow money to buy a luxury item you have no method of affording well than you can take responcibility for that action.I don't have a problem with this statement, but my point was that you can't say that someone is doing well simply because they have access to credit.

Democratic socialism is a form of anarcho-communism.

That might be, but they're not the same thing. Nazism is a form of fascism, but not they're not the same thing. And Orwell wasn't an anarcho-communist.

I wonder how fast Japan and South Korea would have grown if not for the U.S. aid they received.
.

I'm sure faster than if they undertook communism under soviet aid. ;)
I don't have a problem with the idea of doing so; the point is that neither is charity, which we both agree on.


<shrug> I don't claim to understand Marx, fortunately Marx was neither the creator nor does he have a monopoly on all of the forms of communism.
.

Yeah thats fair enough. He has had the most practical influence though. The rest seem very utopian.


I don't have a problem with this statement, but my point was that you can't say that someone is doing well simply because they have access to credit.

Can you say something is doing well because is has a fair liberal democracy. Civil liberties. Economic freedoms.... Easy access to credit.
It might not be doing "well" but it has the foundations atleast.

Nothing. It works... in theory. Look at China and Cuba for example.
China and cuba are bth not true communism, they have a dictator, communismis still a theory, because all modern and past communist countrys have had one, it sort of makes communism facsism.

That might be, but they're not the same thing. Nazism is a form of fascism, but not they're not the same thing. True, but it is fair to say that a Nazi is a fascist because they believe in a form of fascism in the same way that an anarcho-communist is a communism because they believe in a form of communism.

And Orwell wasn't an anarcho-communist.Yes, he was. As you said, he supported democratic socialism. Democratic socialism is a form of anarcho-communism. Therefore, he was an anarcho-communism. Same as above.

I'm sure faster than if they undertook communism under soviet aid. ;) True, as loathsome as I think the U.S. is, I'd rather live here than in Soviet Russia.

Yeah thats fair enough. He has had the most practical influence though. The rest seem very utopian.Well, I would agree that they are somewhat utopian, but I think that with a few minor modifications Bakunin or Kropotkin would be practical.

Can you say something is doing well because is has a fair liberal democracy. Civil liberties. Economic freedoms.... Easy access to credit.
It might not be doing "well" but it has the foundations atleast.I wouldn't say that having a vast amount of economic freedom means that someone is doing well, because economic freedom is a freedom that can only be exercised if the person doing the exercising has money.

economic freedom is a freedom that can only be exercised if the person doing the exercising has money.

Freedom of speech can only be fully utilised if you have good communication skills.

Your right to form a political party is only meaningful if you have good presentation and image in which people will consider you.

Economic freedoms are only meaningful if you have the skills/opportunitys in which to work and make money.


There might not always be 100% employment, that may not even be desirable but everyone has the ability to get a job and earn money with which to exercise at their descression. If you are fully incapable of working in any form than theres not a civilized country in the world where you arn't entitled to a good quality of welfare.

The very idea of true communism can only last under the premise mankind is not greedy, ambitious, or aggressive and is willing to cooperate with a large union.

As man continues to evolve towards a closer harmony with the rest of the world then it may become possible, but currently we are still an agressive species with ambition/greed that will make communism inherantly flawed.

--

Capitalism promotes ambition and greed, which we are, and thus it works. However, if unchecked many of the more cooperative/passive people will fall behind. Capitalist Welfare state ftw.

Mankind is not ready for unity.

Freedom of speech can only be fully utilised if you have good communication skills.But they can be utilized even if you don't have such things.

Your right to form a political party is only meaningful if you have good presentation and image in which people will consider you.But you can still try to do so even if you don't have these things.

Economic freedoms are only meaningful if you have the skills/opportunitys in which to work and make money.I agree, but not everyone has the skill or opportunity, therefore economic freedom isn't necessarily meaningful..

There might not always be 100% employment, that may not even be desirable but everyone has the ability to get a job and earn money with which to exercise at their descression.If this were true then there wouldn't be an unemployment rate.

If you are fully incapable of working in any form than theres not a civilized country in the world where you arn't entitled to a good quality of welfare.I can agree with this.

But they can be utilized even if you don't have such things.
.

Okay my mistake. But you have more benefit from any civil liberty or right if you happen to have certain skills or qualitys that flourish from that right. The same is true of economic liberty as most other freedoms.


But you can still try to do so even if you don't have these things.
.

And you can still have/save and spend money even if you don't have any amazing tallent or skill in which to flourish.


I agree, but not everyone has the skill or opportunity, therefore economic freedom isn't necessarily meaningful..
.

Unequal distribution of wealth is only going to reflect the differences in tallent, hard work and luck. Hard work deserves more reward and provides incentive to earn yourself more economic power thats balanced and transfered so effectively via the market :)

Not to mention everyone has some skill. Even if its to use a shovel to dig a hole. And its up to you to spend some time to work out what you can do well along with what you enjoy and whats valued in society and develop that skill. I'm not falling in the anarcho-capitalist trap either. I support the government and education helping you along the way, particuarly in the early years of your life.



If this were true then there wouldn't be an unemployment rate.
.

But a bit of unemployment is needed in order to stimulate the economy. If there are some people always looking for jobs than new jobs can be filled quickly. Competiton for places means wages can be kept low and therefore keep inflation low.

If everyone always had a job than wages would rise in order to attract workers to work for them (since they would have a choice) and inflation would be so high as to ruin everyones progress.

Its unfortunate that everyone can't be employed but life is like a race and someone has to come last and thats what drives you to run faster.

Okay my mistake. But you have more benefit from any civil liberty or right if you happen to have certain skills or qualitys that flourish from that right. The same is true of economic liberty as most other freedoms.I can agree with this.

And you can still have/save and spend money even if you don't have any amazing tallent or skill in which to flourish.Yes, as long as you can make money.

Unequal distribution of wealth is only going to reflect the differences in tallent, hard work and luck. Hard work deserves more reward and provides incentive to earn yourself more economic power thats balanced and transfered so effectively via the market :)Perhaps hard work should be rewarded, but should good luck?

Not to mention everyone has some skill. Even if its to use a shovel to dig a hole. And its up to you to spend some time to work out what you can do well along with what you enjoy and whats valued in society and develop that skill. I'm not falling in the anarcho-capitalist trap either. I support the government and education helping you along the way, particuarly in the early years of your life.Does this mean that you believe the government should help to support people while they're getting more education to acquire new skills?

But a bit of unemployment is needed in order to stimulate the economy. If there are some people always looking for jobs than new jobs can be filled quickly. Competiton for places means wages can be kept low and therefore keep inflation low.

If everyone always had a job than wages would rise in order to attract workers to work for them (since they would have a choice) and inflation would be so high as to ruin everyones progress.

Its unfortunate that everyone can't be employed but life is like a race and someone has to come last and thats what drives you to run faster.Heh. I think I'll steal this for use in the anarcho-communism thread. :)

Found it;

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10888051&postcount=49

Your data is far from conclusive, I was hoping for a little more.

It was well said regardless of wo was tha author.

No, I meant that I will allow a more astute poster counter his argument.

Your data is far from conclusive, I was hoping for a little more.
The data is quite consistent prior to welfare reform, and quite consistent afterwords - and there was not other program at the time which could claim responsibility...


No, I meant that I will allow a more astute poster counter his argument. You are full of astuteness. You are astuteful. I don't know anyone more astuted.

I dunno about other communist states, but in Yugoslavia everyone could say what they wanted as long as it wasn't: Long live Serbia/Croatia, Nazis were right, and Tito is an asshole. Other than that you could speak what you want about any other thing.

I also understand you couldn't say "Hey! Look what a great car we built!" hehe.

Actually - as so many here have pointed out - Yugoslavia was not 'real' communism... ha!

There is nothing wrong with communism in theory, but practically it is impossible.


I totally agree.


:headbang:

capitalism and communism are counters of each other
just as liberalism and fascism
thats why they are all wrong.
Whats right is having the perfect synthesis of those four, but holding a balance point of all is hard, unlike staying at the end points. At the furthest points all you have to do is use your all strenght to give your weight to it and win, bu t in the middle there is no winning but balance, peace and prosperity.
There has to be a middle point between the needs of individual and needs of society as a being.

What is Wrong with Communism?
It has never been done rightly. Stalin, Mao, etc.... with their "Communism" (actually it was tyrannism, and that's a different thing) there went something wrong:

because the belongings of the citizens may be not safe in communism, some people like Mao e.g. use that attribute for their own profit.
If people would handle that attribute with care, there wouldn't be anything wrong with communism... or persuade me of the opposite

[sorry if my English was bad here....i'm in hurry]

Perhaps hard work should be rewarded, but should good luck?

Well lucks part of life. We shouldn't reward "luck" since lucks its own reward. If I find £5 on the street or I get the exact exam questions I was hoping for on a test ... etc. We don't reward you for this. We just don't take away the benefits luck has brought you.


Does this mean that you believe the government should help to support people while they're getting more education to acquire new skills?


Sure. Infact I'm quite fond of the interest free loans the government offers everyone going to uni. Its enough to make sure all students have food/housing and once they come out and start working they can slowly pay it back so in the long run it doesn't actually cost that much money for the government to do.

I can agree with this.

Yes, as long as you can make money.

Perhaps hard work should be rewarded, but should good luck?

Does this mean that you believe the government should help to support people while they're getting more education to acquire new skills?

Heh. I think I'll steal this for use in the anarcho-communism thread. :)


I think good luck should indeed be rewarded.

capitalism and communism are counters of each other
just as liberalism and fascism
thats why they are all wrong.
Whats right is having the perfect synthesis of those four, but holding a balance point of all is hard, unlike staying at the end points. At the furthest points all you have to do is use your all strenght to give your weight to it and win, bu t in the middle there is no winning but balance, peace and prosperity.
There has to be a middle point between the needs of individual and needs of society as a being.

Okay hold on. So because liberalism is the "counter" of fascism both must be wrong. Just as capitalism is wrong since its a counter of communism?

And we need a synthesis of ideologies including fascism? to ensure peace?

It has never been done rightly. Stalin, Mao, etc.... with their "Communism" (actually it was tyrannism, and that's a different thing) there went something wrong:

because the belongings of the citizens may be not safe in communism, some people like Mao e.g. use that attribute for their own profit.
If people would handle that attribute with care, there wouldn't be anything wrong with communism... or persuade me of the opposite

[sorry if my English was bad here....i'm in hurry]

Well its easy to pick out Stalin and so no no this isn't communism. But Lenin was a clear Marxist beleiver and intended to formulate a 20th century revolution so had to update Marx's ideas.

When he forced a revolution and no one else seemed to follow he had to use terror to sustain power since he didn't want to abandon the first red revolution. Lenin was the one who banned all opposition who introduced the first show trials and set up the secret police to cheack peoples backrounds. All Stalin did was intensify what Lenin had already started and turn the terror to within his own party.
Unless a world revolution happens the "socialist/communist" state will always have capitalist opposition and thus will not wither away. And in order to keep absolute power they have to resort to fascist measures. It just so happens in the cold war America outmatched the Soviet economy and China accepted more liberal economic policies (while keeping the brutal government).

But this practical Marxism was predicted nonetheless but anarcho-communists while Marx was writing these ideas. I'm fed up with people saying, oh the communist government is mean and killed people that can't be communism. Because applied Marxism will always result in totalitarian style regimes determined to keep power at any cost (because they're superior to capitalism)

We just don't take away the benefits luck has brought you.Why not? I can see why you wouldn't take away certain benefits, but I don't see why others couldn't be taken away.

Sure. Infact I'm quite fond of the interest free loans the government offers everyone going to uni. Its enough to make sure all students have food/housing and once they come out and start working they can slowly pay it back so in the long run it doesn't actually cost that much money for the government to do.Well, I support the idea of free university education, but interest-free loans are exponentially superior to loans with interest on them.

I think good luck should indeed be rewarded.Why?

Why not? I can see why you wouldn't take away certain benefits, but I don't see why others couldn't be taken away.

[QUOTE=Jello Biafra]
Well, I support the idea of free university education, but interest-free loans are exponentially superior to loans with interest on them.


Sure I support free education for the basic level. But universitys are specifically for higher education for the most intelligent. If we ensure some stake in going (lets say £2000 a year loans you will have to pay back) than only those who seriously want to seek the benefits and committ to the education will go.

If spening 3 years at uni cost nothing I'd figure most people who be interested in going for the pure reason to just avoid work for a while, go to some good parties. Not to mention the burdon to pay for uni (which will be dramatically higher than it is now, since so many extra students will go) will suddenly be put on the tax payers even those who haven't gone to uni.


Why?

If someones lucky enough to be amazingly beautiful or have a naturall tallent for comedy I can see why some people would reward them with modling jobs or comedy routines.

Sure I support free education for the basic level. But universitys are specifically for higher education for the most intelligent. If we ensure some stake in going (lets say £2000 a year loans you will have to pay back) than only those who seriously want to seek the benefits and committ to the education will go.

If spening 3 years at uni cost nothing I'd figure most people who be interested in going for the pure reason to just avoid work for a while, go to some good parties. Not to mention the burdon to pay for uni (which will be dramatically higher than it is now, since so many extra students will go) will suddenly be put on the tax payers even those who haven't gone to uni. Ah, I see the difference. You don't view getting an education as working, whereas I do.

If someones lucky enough to be amazingly beautiful or have a naturall tallent for comedy I can see why some people would reward them with modling jobs or comedy routines.Yes, which is fine, but I don't see why the modeling jobs and comedy routines should come (significantly) more highly paid than other jobs do - if we are simply talking about giving people jobs that they are naturally suited for, then I don't have a problem with (and would encourage) that.

Ah, I see the difference. You don't view getting an education as working, whereas I do.

Yes, which is fine, but I don't see why the modeling jobs and comedy routines should come (significantly) more highly paid than other jobs do - if we are simply talking about giving people jobs that they are naturally suited for, then I don't have a problem with (and would encourage) that.
I'm much more of a fan of free education, all the way through university, as it seems to put people in school who actually know something, rather than people who can actually pay for it.

I'm much more of a fan of free education, all the way through university, as it seems to put people in school who actually know something, rather than people who can actually pay for it.That's how I feel about it, too. I mean, interest-free loans would be a big help, but what if the thing they get an education in is no longer in demand when they're finished and they have to default on the loans? It's certainly a risk I'd think twice about taking.

Why?

1. We negatively reward bad luck. Rewarding good luck evens things out.
2. Good Luck is ( often ) short hand for positive factors that we don't really comprehend or can explain. But I wish to encourage such positive factor ( such as an ability to pick the next number on a roulettewheel ) none the less.
3. If there by psychic good luck, I'd like to see more of that in the future, in the next as-yet-unborn-generation.

That's how I feel about it, too. I mean, interest-free loans would be a big help, but what if the thing they get an education in is no longer in demand when they're finished and they have to default on the loans? It's certainly a risk I'd think twice about taking.
BTW, if people in a country want to be "Communist", that's OK with me as long as they don't plan to overthrow where I live.

Also, as long as they can implement it without putting 1 out of 5 people against the wall, that's ok with me too.

Just keep it in your own country.

1. We negatively reward bad luck. Rewarding good luck evens things out.Why should we negatively reward bad luck? (I agree that we do do so.)
2. Good Luck is ( often ) short hand for positive factors that we don't really comprehend or can explain. But I wish to encourage such positive factor ( such as an ability to pick the next number on a roulettewheel ) none the less.I'm not certain why being able to pick the next number on a roulette wheel is something that should be desired; I understand that it is because of gambling and whatnot.
3. If there by psychic good luck, I'd like to see more of that in the future, in the next as-yet-unborn-generation.Well, I'd like to see the next generation better off than this is, and if luck is part of it, then fine, but not if it's unevenly applied.

BTW, if people in a country want to be "Communist", that's OK with me as long as they don't plan to overthrow where I live.

Also, as long as they can implement it without putting 1 out of 5 people against the wall, that's ok with me too.

Just keep it in your own country.That's an awfully moderate opinion you have there. Did your visit to Britain change you? :)

That's an awfully moderate opinion you have there. Did your visit to Britain change you? :)

No. Point of fact, people in many countries have vague forms of socialism (market socialism at least) that one could argue were implemented without killing people wholesale.

Yes, I have no problem with killing people wholesale if the goal is prevention of genocide against my own side (it's the argument behind the possession of nuclear weapons by a nation for retaliatory purposes - something every nuclear nation espouses, so I'm not strange).

But killing people wholesale (by the tens of millions) is not justifiable, IMHO, in cases of implementing a form of government.

Imagine the hue and cry if the US Army, on invading Iraq, put the Sunni population against the wall and shot them. Same thing.

1. Why should we negatively reward bad luck? (I agree that we do do so.)

2. I'm not certain why being able to pick the next number on a roulette wheel is something that should be desired; I understand that it is because of gambling and whatnot.

3. Well, I'd like to see the next generation better off than this is, and if luck is part of it, then fine, but not if it's unevenly applied.

4. That's an awfully moderate opinion you have there. Did your visit to Britain change you? :)

1. Because ( for one reason ) we think that people should have the chance to learn something from their tendency to put huge sums of money on horses during the Grand National, or investments in International Banks of Commerce and Corruption, or putting their names down as LLoyds Names without figuring out what the risks are.
And the thing we want them to learn is: stop being so DUMB!

2. Can you tell succesful gambling and an ability to read the future apart?
I can't!

3. If we can't explain what luck is ( I can't ) I can't explain either how it can be unevenly or evenly applied. No more than I could explain whether 'luck' would be pink or teal.

4. Maybe he has! You should give it a try sometimes. *wink* Britain has that effect on folks.

No. Point of fact, people in many countries have vague forms of socialism (market socialism at least) that one could argue were implemented without killing people wholesale.

Yes, I have no problem with killing people wholesale if the goal is prevention of genocide against my own side (it's the argument behind the possession of nuclear weapons by a nation for retaliatory purposes - something every nuclear nation espouses, so I'm not strange).

But killing people wholesale (by the tens of millions) is not justifiable, IMHO, in cases of implementing a form of government.

Imagine the hue and cry if the US Army, on invading Iraq, put the Sunni population against the wall and shot them. Same thing.I can't disagree with anything in this post.

1. Because ( for one reason ) we think that people should have the chance to learn something from their tendency to put huge sums of money on horses during the Grand National, or investments in International Banks of Commerce and Corruption, or putting their names down as LLoyds Names without figuring out what the risks are.
And the thing we want them to learn is: stop being so DUMB!I'm not sure if that's us negatively rewarding bad luck, or bad luck negatively rewarding itself. I was referring to, for instance, a person being born deformed and taunted their whole lives. That would be to my mind, "us" negatively rewarding to bad luck. If the negative reward is the bad luck itself, then for the most part I don't have a problem with this.

2. Can you tell succesful gambling and an ability to read the future apart?
I can't!No, I suppose I can't...lol. You may be onto something there.

3. If we can't explain what luck is ( I can't ) I can't explain either how it can be unevenly or evenly applied. No more than I could explain whether 'luck' would be pink or teal.I don't know if explaining a general rule of luck is necessary to explaining whether or not it is evenly applied as long as you can point out specific instances of it.

4. Maybe he has! You should give it a try sometimes. *wink* Britain has that effect on folks.Oh, if I could afford it, I'd love to travel.

'Luck' is a word to explain things we can't explain.
We say the throw of a die is random, because we are unable to predict its fall.
But suppose someone could?

Can we seriously understand such a thing as second sight?
Same story. ( Succesful gamblers may have second sight. )
We apply the name, but we haven't gotten closer to grasping it.

Meanwhile, we do respond to luck - even when we don't have definitions or explanations.

As to a person being deformed: this may be due to genetical factors ( or to luck ).
Do we really want those factors showing up in the next generation as well?
Not that we try to stop those factors entirely, we do allow for 'luck'.

I can't explain applying a thing very well when I don't yet know what that thing is.
This also disallows being fair about it.
I am defending the concept of 'luck' here, in all its forms, on the principle of being agnostic about it.

*grin* lets talk about that in a couple of months. I'm an expert on travelling really cheap.

'Luck' is a word to explain things we can't explain.
We say the throw of a die is random, because we are unable to predict its fall.
But suppose someone could?

Can we seriously understand such a thing as second sight?
Same story. ( Succesful gamblers may have second sight. )
We apply the name, but we haven't gotten closer to grasping it.

Meanwhile, we do respond to luck - even when we don't have definitions or explanations.

As to a person being deformed: this may be due to genetical factors ( or to luck ).
Do we really want those factors showing up in the next generation as well?
Not that we try to stop those factors entirely, we do allow for 'luck'.

I can't explain applying a thing very well when I don't yet know what that thing is.
This also disallows being fair about it.
I am defending the concept of 'luck' here, in all its forms, on the principle of being agnostic about it.Ah, I see. You view luck to be (at least in part) psychic ability. This explains our difference in opinion. Fair enough.

*grin* lets talk about that in a couple of months. I'm an expert on travelling really cheap.Lol. Okay, I'm sure I'll still be here in a couple of months (but not continuously, you know what I mean).

Ah, I see. You view luck to be (at least in part) psychic ability. This explains our difference in opinion. Fair enough.

Lol. Okay, I'm sure I'll still be here in a couple of months (but not continuously, you know what I mean).

I'm saying luck might be psychic, but that I don't know what it is, and that I distrust anyone who claims to really understand luck.
( I would not trust an X-Man, unless I had just knifed him with a poisonous blade. )
We know that luck is something positive, and we do know we want more of it, but we don't really know what it is.
( No harm in that, we don't really know what World Peace is - yet most of us want more of it anyway. )

Not Continous - ditto. :)

Capitalism doesn't really exist.

No country in the world really qualify litteraly as having capitalism as an society model.

USA is conservative and have import regulation.
Mircosoft was devided becouse of the law and the goverment that equals to society obviously has less money than the corporations it contain.
Society contains corporations.
It just contains capital within the society model.

And some socialistic theory does have capitalism within their society model.
So it's really not either or but the difference lays in how society regulate the market and spend the taxes.

Communism versus capitalism is just black and white wiev that is just one-sided.

Liberalism with free market doesn't even qualify as capitism in the way Marx bathized the term.

Capitalism is an term invented by communism by how they wiev the world
and not something that real people usually define themselves accordingly.

In final answer.
Liberalism has many fine points but capitalsm in pure theory doesn't.

*
the best product should be favoured abowe others.
Progress and evoltion. Everything does not have an equal value
and that needs to measured according to reality.
*
the market is an form of democracy as long there isn't any monopoles
and everybody have an fair chance to educate and work..
*
Abscence from group pressure becouse group mentality like all socialists have
suck. Liberalism focus on the person not on generalised concepts such as humanity.
*
Energy, culture and art.
I don't recognice any such in socialism.
Becouse they depend on personality, emotionality and integrity,
Freedrom of expression require tolerance to moral relativism.
Art is an chocking medium.
*
Elitism. I like elitism.
I do want to educate and to learn more than others.
Then I want the acceptance and reward for my intelligence.
I believe the group can only learn what is intelligent
by observing the example of the elite.
I don't want to be equal and I wants to keep some of my benifits that I deserve. I hate idiots.

*
In socialism there is no fredrom to contol your social life becouse
of solidarity.
Everybody are pushing for you to fit in the big family
becouse there are no real jobs as I see it.
They all live on minum and have the same needs and feelings or so they believe becouse they all degenerate.
There are no styles or room to be smarter or any stimulating challanges
becouse everyone are supposed to be equal.
*
Liberalism offers freedrom from social expections.

I support the socialistic idea
that the many should pay for the poor
only if the many including the poor
are equally paying for the elite.

The poor being helped are not poor any more
and the only point of helping the poor is prevent them to damage society.
Everything has an result.
The poor will always be violent and no matter who pays for their welfare
the cost of an injure is always the same in any hospital.

Teeth for an teeth.

The more poor you are the more you are exposed to harm which will have any effect.

The elite can only be an elite if they are favoured.
The benifits may seem small but they are neccessary.

My form of Equality should not be measured by money
and everyone who can earn more than another should.
It is the existence of the possibilty that matters and any worhless human reaction of it is being expressed in money.
There fore you should not change that realiity.

All benifits can be used to reliev responsiblity but they are also the only measure of strenght no matter the subject.

The Elite is an measurement of being. An acceptance of reality,
you can only accept. Everything is really luck and understanding of how things are is more important than morality.

There are no human needs only human benefits.

Everything positive comes from realism and in the form of benifits.
And the only thing that makes something positive is how easy and possible it is to achieve.
The only thing that makes something negatice is how complicated and unlikely it is.
The smarter you are the more simple things become to you
and the less morality you have the more real you are.

I'm saying luck might be psychic, but that I don't know what it is, and that I distrust anyone who claims to really understand luck.
( I would not trust an X-Man, unless I had just knifed him with a poisonous blade. )
We know that luck is something positive, and we do know we want more of it, but we don't really know what it is.
( No harm in that, we don't really know what World Peace is - yet most of us want more of it anyway. )Ah, I see. I can agree that we don't know what luck is, but we can point out specific things and say "that's luck". I'm not certain that (all of) those specific things should be rewarded.