NationStates Jolt Archive

Why does everybody hate Communism? It's not bad. It's good! People work and can get whatever they want from the store. Nobody is poor and nobody is rich.

Why is everybody so anti-communist???:mad:

Because so many communist governments have done oppressive things to their own people (Stalin and Mao for example) and have been enemies to the United States and Western Europe.

Communism is good in theroy but it hasn't been so in practice.

lol

you might want to read up on communism before you say things like "people can get whatever they want from the store"

think it through some

then come back with a more thoughtful version of what communism might be like.

My lad, that's called propoganda. People tell you that Communism is evil because they don't want you to know about it...

Look at Communism this way- The government owns all of the factories and all of the large companies. That means that there are no buisnessmen. That means that there are no rich people who lie to the poor just to get more money.

Over time, money will be completely forgotten. People would work just because they enjoy work. Farmers would give other people their fruits and electricians would give other people televisions...

What's so bad about that?

Communism works reasonably well at a very small scale- i.e. communes. When you try to apply it to something much larger like government you run into problems like trying to keep the system from collapsing or someone getting political ambitions.

Communism works reasonably well at a very small scale- i.e. communes. When you try to apply it to something much larger like government you run into problems like trying to keep the system from collapsing or someone getting political ambitions.



exactly...

Only in 500 or so years, people will be more evolved and will understand it, and hopefully implement it!:cool:

Why does everybody hate Communism? It's not bad. It's good! People work and can get whatever they want from the store. Nobody is poor and nobody is rich.

Why is everybody so anti-communist???:mad:

in an ideal world it would work but there are to many greedy and corrupt types for it to succeed.....it does work in hunter-gatherer societies but anything bigger and it will fail


Because so many communist governments have done oppressive things to their own people (Stalin and Mao for example) and have been enemies to the United States and Western Europe.

no more oppressive than many free market economies, it's not the economic systems that are evil, it's the assholes in charge.....

lol

you might want to read up on communism before you say things like "people can get whatever they want from the store"

think it through some

then come back with a more thoughtful version of what communism might be like.

the free market system as it is now, is also imperfect, it cannot continue as it indefinitely.....it replies on constant growth to succeed and infinite growth is impossible

in an ideal world it would work but there are to many greedy and corrupt types for it to succeed.....it does work in hunter-gatherer societies but anything bigger and it will fail




no more oppressive than many free market economies, it's not the economic systems that are evil, it's the assholes in charge.....



the free market system as it is now, is also imperfect, it cannot continue as it indefinitely.....it replies on constant growth to succeed and infinite growth is impossible


You are RIGHT Mr.Marx!!!:cool:

in an ideal world it would work but there are to many greedy and corrupt types for it to succeed.....it does work in hunter-gatherer societies but anything bigger and it will fail




no more oppressive than many free market economies, it's not the economic systems that are evil, it's the assholes in charge.....



the free market system as it is now, is also imperfect, it cannot continue as it indefinitely.....it replies on constant growth to succeed and infinite growth is impossible


Exactly

exactly...

Only in 500 or so years, people will be more evolved and will understand it, and hopefully implement it!:cool:

yes yes, because those of us who dislike communism are just unenlightened fools...

My lad, that's called propoganda. People tell you that Communism is evil because they don't want you to know about it...

Look at Communism this way- The government owns all of the factories and all of the large companies. That means that there are no buisnessmen. That means that there are no rich people who lie to the poor just to get more money.

Over time, money will be completely forgotten. People would work just because they enjoy work. Farmers would give other people their fruits and electricians would give other people televisions...

What's so bad about that?

take a look at the planned economies of the warsaw bloc and of communist china during mao's reign.

that will show you the problems of a centrally planned economy. you can have all the black plastic combs and granny panties that you want. the good stuff...you have to smuggle that in.

Because it doesn't work in practice. Just like anarchism and completely unregulated capitalism.

There was never true communism in the world. It's always 'on the way' and stuff like that...

Why does everybody hate Communism?

Oh, because I like my individuality and I seriously would find it such a drag to queue for bread for five hours.

If I wanted whole-wheat, high-fibre vegan bread (which I do), that would be days if they had it at all! Fuck that shit.

exactly...

Only in 500 or so years, people will be more evolved and will understand it, and hopefully implement it!:cool:

No, sonny jim, we'll all probably be dead by then. War or some such comedy.

The 20th Century stands as a fitting monument to communism: a mountain of skulls.

Why does everybody hate Communism? It's not bad. It's good! People work and can get whatever they want from the store. Nobody is poor and nobody is rich.

Why is everybody so anti-communist???:mad:

Because communism can't work due to the constraints of human nature and any attempt to make it work has resulted in violations of people's civil rights, inefficiencies in agriculture and industry, scarcity of goods, and misery among the communist masses. That's why.

My lad, that's called propoganda. People tell you that Communism is evil because they don't want you to know about it...

Look at Communism this way- The government owns all of the factories and all of the large companies. That means that there are no buisnessmen. That means that there are no rich people who lie to the poor just to get more money.

Over time, money will be completely forgotten. People would work just because they enjoy work. Farmers would give other people their fruits and electricians would give other people televisions...

What's so bad about that?

nobody enjoys cleaning toilets, but it has to be done. people work because it provides them with money. you think I like my job? nope. I like buying things, like food, and internet access.

There was never true communism in the world. It's always 'on the way' and stuff like that...

That should tell you something. There has also never been a perpetual motion machine despite people working on it. Some things are just impossible.

Why does everybody hate Communism? It's not bad. It's good! People work and can get whatever they want from the store. Nobody is poor and nobody is rich.

Why is everybody so anti-communist???:mad:
Because people are mostly hypocrites, and simply too weak and flawed to successfully implement communism, beyond the scale of small communities.

The failure of most communist countries also contributes to anti-communism.

nobody enjoys cleaning toilets, but it has to be done. people work because it provides them with money. you think I like my job? nope. I like buying things, like food, and internet access.

Yes, that's a flaw.


Supposedly, people would treat the people who clean toilets very nicely and they would be regarded as very high members of society

Or, just banish toilets altogether! Go in the woods or summit...

My lad, that's called propoganda. People tell you that Communism is evil because they don't want you to know about it...

Look at Communism this way- The government owns all of the factories and all of the large companies. That means that there are no buisnessmen. That means that there are no rich people who lie to the poor just to get more money.

Over time, money will be completely forgotten. People would work just because they enjoy work. Farmers would give other people their fruits and electricians would give other people televisions...

What's so bad about that?

Well for one thing, electricians don't make televisions...

Yes, that's a flaw.


Supposedly, people would treat the people who clean toilets very nicely and they would be regarded as very high members of society

Or, just banish toilets altogether! Go in the woods or summit...

Just shut up.

Honesty, just shut up.

Communism is the pipe dream of far leftist morons who can't understand that money makes the world go around. Nobody's intentions are completely honorable, and nobody works solely for the common good. True communism is anarchy, and anarchy doesn't work, does it? People need to be governed, people crave leadership. The sooner you understand that, the sooner we can move on.

*hangs up a sign*

Dont feed the troll

I don't hate it but it's a totally illogical system which is impossible to achieve due to human nature. We're not equal, it's better to realize it than living in the belief that we are. Communism is doomed to fail. It will only lead to poverty and an economic collapse. Look at China, they've changed ther economic system and it's going great for them. Sure some people are much richer than other but I would rather have a society were some are richer than other than a society were all are equally poor.

People dislike communism because it sucks.

More seriously, they dislike it because they are perceptive enough to see how catastrophic a failure it would be if implemented in real life. Suppose we got rid of private property and made everything state-owned. If so, it would be extremely easy for any random government official to start taking away civil rights, political freedoms, etc.; no-one could object because none of them own enough of anything to actually have influence with government officials, and moreover they're all working far too hard to survive to even have time to protest. People would be exploited the same way as they are in the corporatist societies of today, except they wouldn't have a choice about who gets to exploit them, and they wouldn't get even the meagre amount they get in corporate oligarchies.

I suggest you read Orwell's Animal Farm, then come back and debate us. It provides a good and clear introduction to why communism does not work.

It doesn't work because humanity is not ready for such a high achievment like communism. Almost everyone always wants to have more and more instead of just wanting to have enough of everything.

I think thats why it doesn't work.

Poor humanity... :(

Greetings

My lad, that's called propoganda. People tell you that Communism is evil because they don't want you to know about it...

Look at Communism this way- The government owns all of the factories and all of the large companies. That means that there are no buisnessmen. That means that there are no rich people who lie to the poor just to get more money.

Over time, money will be completely forgotten. People would work just because they enjoy work. Farmers would give other people their fruits and electricians would give other people televisions...

What's so bad about that?
Let's think this over for a moment.

In a Communist society, the government owns all factories and companies in the name of the People.

The last time I checked, governments are run by people. The people that tend to run governments are not saints by any means... in fact, they tend to be politicians, whom tend to be even bigger liars than business owners.

There has certainly been plenty of propaganda against Communism in Western Countries. I would not discourage you from recognizing propaganda when you see it. But consider this: Communist societies are renowned for their propaganda as well, and to accept what Communists say as unmitigated truth is to err even further than a person willing to blindly accept what is said in non-Communist countries as "truth".

Why is this?

I'll try to explain. Pure Communism has never existed. It never can exist - Communism is the goal that Communist governments claim to work towards. A truly Communist country would have no "state apparatus" or government as such. Ultimately, however, such a society is as much a pipe dream as "heaven" - it's an opiate for the people administered by Communists to convince the people that the sacrifices demanded of them are somehow acceptable and for some supposed "greater good".

The saddest part is that, in reality, all you have are your life, your rights, and your property and no one has a right to demand you to sacrifice them in the name of some altruistic "greater good". This is quickly forgotten under Communism.

In a Communist society, the government owns the means of production in the name of the people. The people themselves cannot own the means of production - this would be akin to direct democracy, which is impossible except on a small scale. The government administration of businesses shows itself to operate much in the way that all "representative governments" do - it operates in the interests of politicians, not those they are meant to represent. Take a look at the mess Parliaments and the US Congress tend to make of things, and multiply that tenfold by giving them the power to regulate other spheres of life, and you have a rather fair representation of what you would get under a "transitory Communist government".

Under a Capitalist system, do you depend upon other people? Absolutely. You depend upon your boss, the person who owns your business, the people who own the stores from which you buy your vital goods, your doctors, several levels of government, etc. Guess what? Communism makes you entirely dependant on the government, as the government has a monopoly on companies, goods, healthcare, housing, etc. Everything which Communism promises to give you a "handout" regarding necessarily comes from the government. The government reserves the right to strip those things from you should you disagree with its policies. It a Capitalist system, you could at least go to a competitor... such is not an option under Communism.

And no, it's not an option to simply go to another country. If they let you go, they'd also have to let go of skilled workers like doctors who feel that their labor might be more highly valued elsewhere... and if they were allowed to go, there would be an enormous catastrophic impact that would certainly be a disservice to "the People". Perhaps you believe that the hypothetical "doctor" in this example is greedy? Look at it this way: what motivation does a person have to use their gifted intellect to go off to extra years of schooling to become a doctor when they would have done just as well to work in a factory right out of high school?

And, considering that those with the talent to become doctors but not the will would simply not become doctors, that would limit us to only those with will... and hopefully talent, although not necessarily. That by necessity limits the amount of capable doctors we would otherwise have... what makes you think that they would just "be allowed to go"? And if they can't go, why should you be able to go? Should lack of ability translate into a greater number of rights?

Let's take a step back and consider it from a different angle. The fundamental flaw of the democratic process in electing leaders is that the more individuals a particular leader represents, the less beholden they are to any particular one of those individuals and yet the more capable he is of saying he speaks "in the name of the People". This is why communism only works on a small scale, in communes - the leaders in communes answer directly to the people that elect them. In a Communist society, the leaders not only represent the interests of the people, but also the interests needed to represent manufacturing and the economy itself. The resources of the world are limited - you cannot produce enough goods to fulfill the near-unlimited wants of ALL the people. This in itself is a problem for Communism, but it is exacerbated by the fact that the government actually has to MANAGE the economy by itself. Economic feasibility has to be weighed against the demands the people make for the things they want... and the government is left making the decisions.

Traditionally, this has translated into shortages in Communist countries. Communist shortages were not simply due to the "leaders being dictatorial jerks" or because the "evil Capitalist West" wouldn't let them have the resources... it was the direct result of the inefficiencies inherent in a Communist system. The Soviet Union had far greater natural resources at its disposal than the United States did, but it found itself unable to properly feed and supply for the needs of a comparably-sized population.

... and I could go on and on as to why Communism doesn't work. When it comes down to it, people don't just, "just because they enjoy work." Farmers don't just, "give other people their fruits and electricians would give other people televisions..." The system itself destroys any incentive to work in order to produce in a great enough quantity to provide for everyone, a structure is inevitably necessary to set quotas and to distribute goods, the people ultimately become reliant on the government for their needs, and slavery is the inevitable result.

Some people would say that Communism only failed because it was only tried in backwards nations to begin with. I would counter that the reason it was never tried in more advanced nations was because advanced nations had more highly educated populations capable of seeing the inherent flaws in the system and thus weren't dumb enough to try it.

exactly...

Only in 500 or so years, people will be more evolved and will understand it, and hopefully implement it!:cool:

You're trying to predict the future, aren't you?

Why isn't everyone capitalist? I mean, there's nothing wrong with it. You work for your own living, and the amount of work is proportional to what you earn (and there's no evil government to take away your money with The TAXES!!). The only reason it hasn't worked out yet is that we've never had TRUE capitalism!! Therefore, all you have to do is work hard to reap the benefits! In 500 years or so, people will be so evolved that everyone will be able to work hard and get unlimited money and there will be no war and poverty.:D

People don't like communism because it doesn't work.

Why does everybody hate Communism? It's not bad. It's good! People work and can get whatever they want from the store. Nobody is poor and nobody is rich.

Why is everybody so anti-communist???
This first post reflects a failure to understand the entire economic issue behind coordination in an advanced society. There aren't just goods and distribution, there is production, co-ordination, incentization, and consumption. All of which have to be linked together in a meaningful manner. Capitalism links them without major issues, perhaps some regulations are necessary, perhaps they aren't but the system still acts somewhat naturally.


Communism is good in theroy but it hasn't been so in practice.
That is because communism is bad in both theory and practice. The failure of communism in practice only forced us to recognize that the theories about communism's failure were correct. This goes back to the socialist calculation debate on the nature of information problems in the economy, and the side of the Austrians was pretty much declared victorious over the Communists because of the fact that history proved them correct on the untenability of communism.

My lad, that's called propoganda. People tell you that Communism is evil because they don't want you to know about it...
Not at all. People tell you that communism is evil because western nations are ideologically opposed to it, and because it doesn't work.

Look at Communism this way- The government owns all of the factories and all of the large companies. That means that there are no buisnessmen. That means that there are no rich people who lie to the poor just to get more money. Except that this is a completely flawed way to view the economy. Large businesses compete in the modern economy in attempts to appease the consumers and businessmen serve a vital role in the economy, if we didn't have businessmen we would have bureaucrats and stagnation. As well, I don't know of many rich people who lie to poor people, especially given that false advertisement is banned.

Over time, money will be completely forgotten. People would work just because they enjoy work. Farmers would give other people their fruits and electricians would give other people televisions... This idea is COMPLETELY wrong. Money will NEVER be forgotten and that is one of my ideas that I am absolutely certain about. Without the use of money as a medium of exchange, we have NOTHING to coordinate the economy with and for individuals to make trade-offs with. At the very least we need money in the ideal socialist commonwealth(assuming that we aren't in some unlikely situation of post-scarcity) in order to determine who gets what, as Bob the smart guy might want books but dislike TVs, and Bill the bling bling lover might desire gold chains instead of nice buttoned shirts and we need a device in order to determine those wants.

What's so bad about that?
The fact that it is completely unfeasible in any meaningful way.

Only in 500 or so years, people will be more evolved and will understand it, and hopefully implement it!
Not likely at all. This assumes that we will evolve more, which we probably will not, as well it assumes that human nature will undergo a major change which it will likely not undergo. As well, the problems of coordination will likely still exist.

in an ideal world it would work but there are to many greedy and corrupt types for it to succeed.....it does work in hunter-gatherer societies but anything bigger and it will fail Still fails, the modern economy is too complex for communism to work. This is only made worse by corrupt figures.
no more oppressive than many free market economies, it's not the economic systems that are evil, it's the assholes in charge
Significantly more oppressive than most market economies. Most areas with market economies are very free and very successful. The major period and time that most people make this argument in reference to is the Industrial Revolution, and that reference fails to understand that revolutions make the world worse for a significant period of time, as well, it fails to note that the pre-revolutionary period was not marked by common affluence either.

the free market system as it is now, is also imperfect, it cannot continue as it indefinitely.....it replies on constant growth to succeed and infinite growth is impossibleThe market system requires change, the world will always change, therefore the market economy will always succeed. I tend to doubt that you don't think that technological change and that changing consumer tastes will at some point stop, unless you truly have a very unrealistic view of society.

Because people are mostly hypocrites, and simply too weak and flawed to successfully implement communism, beyond the scale of small communities. No, because communism cannot work in a meaningful way on a large scale. It may be partially because of human weakness but it has a lot to do with the nature of the economy itself and of the information problems throughout this economy.

Yes, that's a flaw.


Supposedly, people would treat the people who clean toilets very nicely and they would be regarded as very high members of society

Or, just banish toilets altogether! Go in the woods or summit...
Yes, that is a major flaw. No, toilet cleaners will never be regarded very highly as the most likely people to take that position will be those without the talent for other fields and we need to keep it that way. A working economy needs us to provide good reason for each individual to take the position where they do the most good, as well, a purely status incentive is unlikely to work given the possibility of misanthropes who still can work within the economy but that don't like people. Banishing toilets would be a decrease in everyone's welfare, and to decrease everyone's happiness only for some gain in equality is disgusting both from a view of the importance of human progress and from a utilitarian standpoint.

It doesn't work because humanity is not ready for such a high achievment like communism. Almost everyone always wants to have more and more instead of just wanting to have enough of everything.
Yes, it is so sad that people want to improve their lives.:rolleyes: Please save us from striving for improvement!

[QUOTE=The Plastic Ear;12141363]Over time, money will be completely forgotten. People would work just because they enjoy work. Farmers would give other people their fruits and electricians would give other people televisions...QUOTE]

Ha. Haha. Ha! Hahahahahaha! Do you actually think people are so smart as to be KIND to each other? Work for the greater good? Enjoy work? Leave their selfish ambitions behind? No, we aren't advanced enough for that.

Yes, maybe in 500 years, but I doubt even then. People have allways been bastards, and allways will be. Propably. :headbang:

Some people would say that Communism only failed because it was only tried in backwards nations to begin with. I would counter that the reason it was never tried in more advanced nations was because advanced nations had more highly educated populations capable of seeing the inherent flaws in the system and thus weren't dumb enough to try it.


I think it was never tried in more advanced contries because people who live relatively well don't have a need for a communist revolution since they won't gain from it. Why would someone who owns a house and has a good income in an advanced country revolt?

Good post btw.

Yes, that's a flaw.


Supposedly, people would treat the people who clean toilets very nicely and they would be regarded as very high members of society

Or, just banish toilets altogether! Go in the woods or summit...

I treat people that clean toilets very nicely.

That doesn't make cleaning the shit that clings to the edge of the toilet any more desirable.

And if I could clean toilets and get paid the same as a doctor, why should I want to take the effort to be a doctor? Or an engineer? Or a scientist? Or an electrician?

Are there people that would do these jobs just because they enjoy them? Sure. But if that was ALL we had, we'd have a massive shortage of the services they offer...

People need incentives. They need something of value to themselves for offering their services. Guess what? The problem with Communism isn't that Human Nature just isn't evolved enough to accomodate it... but rather that Communism is too flawed to take it into account. Human Nature, along with the selfishness inherent to it, is the result of evolution. It has developed out of the fact that self preservation is an essential quality to survival.

Selfishness is not bad. One who is truly selfish makes a huge mistake in thinking that it is somehow "okay" to screw over those around him... man has gotten ahead in the world because he has understood that his ability to work together with others working in their own interests ultimately best serves his prime interests as well. It does me little good to screw you over today if I potentially may need your help tomorrow... and one never knows. We ultimately get ahead through cooperating, but cooperation does not mean we ignore that our first and foremost priority is to ourselves and our own interests, and that there is no shame in looking out for those.

And that is perhaps the biggest crime of Communism - it works to convince entire societies of individuals that looking out for individual interest is wrong, when it is individual interest that has contributed to the greatest advancements we see in the world around us. True good does not come from sacrifice, and the group does not have the right to demand that the individual sacrifice that the whole might be better off.

That does not mean people ought not give up things. I might willingly give up something today for the gain that is sure to come to me tomorrow. That is not a sacrifice, however, but rather a trade - in the end, I held what I hope to receive tomorrow in greater value than what I traded for it today. To "sacrifice", however - to willingly give up something of value for no conceivable gain to self - is pointless and, when demanded by others, immoral.

Just a few thoughts. :).

I
And if I could clean toilets and get paid the same as a doctor, why should I want to take the effort to be a doctor? Or an engineer? Or a scientist? Or an electrician?

Because of the fun of going to university for like five years and studying:D

Because of the fun of going to university for like five years and studying:D
Now, hard to argue with that!

Except I shudder to think of what happens in a Communist society DEPENDING on those skills when you don't make the grade that was expected... :D

Now THAT'S pressure!

Suppose we got rid of private property and made everything state-owned.

Find me a communist who's ever proposed this.

"Abolition of private property" pretty much always means, in communist parlance, the abolition of private ownership of the means of production.

If so, it would be extremely easy for any random government official to start taking away civil rights, political freedoms, etc.; no-one could object because none of them own enough of anything to actually have influence with government officials, and moreover they're all working far too hard to survive to even have time to protest. People would be exploited the same way as they are in the corporatist societies of today, except they wouldn't have a choice about who gets to exploit them, and they wouldn't get even the meagre amount they get in corporate oligarchies.

If power depends on property, that is a pretty good reason to implement egalitarian distribution, isn't it?

I suggest you read Orwell's Animal Farm, then come back and debate us.

I suggest you re-read it, and then come back and tell me what it has to do with the flaws of communism.

It doesn't work because humanity is not ready for such a high achievment like communism. Almost everyone always wants to have more and more instead of just wanting to have enough of everything.


It's a damn shame that humanity cannot sink into the morass of content mediocrity, ain't it.

You know, this attitude of "why can't people just be happy with what they have" has always made me think of the Lethargians in "The Phantom Tollbooth".

It's a damn shame that humanity cannot sink into the morass of content mediocrity, ain't it.

Strange, I don't think he said that.

Perhaps you need to review your reading comprehension.

Now, hard to argue with that!

Except I shudder to think of what happens in a Communist society DEPENDING on those skills when you don't make the grade that was expected... :D

Now THAT'S pressure!

We'll, we won't have to worry about that because luckelly that will never happend.

But if a communist society came to be people would consume much more then they needed, because they can, and nothing would be produced so they would be fucked up pretty fast.

OP:

People hate theoretical communism because nobody with any sense or ability likes the idea that they can bust their ass at work and be no better off than a slacker.

People hate dogmatic communism because "from each according to capacity and to each according to needs" fails whenever needs exceed capacity, and it also means that nobody wants to be suspected of having ability because they will have no right to the products of their ability.

People hate real communism because it doesn't just fail to deliver all the good things it claims, it doesn't deliver anything good. Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh... all were communists. More importantly, it has a universal history of leading to corrupt, oppressive, violent governments with no respect for human rights. People who love communism, with few exceptions, are spineless and willing to surrender everything in unflinching obedience to the state, whether or not it is in line with their interests, beliefs or morals.

To quote Rand: "The altruist is the true hater of mankind. He expects nothing of man, so no form of depravity can outrage him."

And middle class people hate communism because communism, and all other oppressive ideals, hate them. These ideologies despise the middle class because the middle class is the only social group concerned with the rule of law; the poor don't expect it and the rich have never needed. Under communism, things work pretty much the same way, but "the rich" is switched for "the party."

Now tell me, what virtues can you fancifully attribute to communism that would stand a chance of outweighing all this?

I suggest you re-read it, and then come back and tell me what it has to do with the flaws of communism.

Uhh... everything? The farm ends up being a collectivist hellhole centered around Napoleon, with the entire population in blind, unswerving allegiance to him, this allegiance enforced, of course, by the dogs.

And on satisfaction:

People are very rarely satisfied with only what they have because THERE'S ALWAYS MORE TO BE HAD. And people have to give up some of what they already have to get at what there still is to be had. So people pay out what they already have to gain more. And that's the economy. A simplistic view, certainly, but it destroys the "why can't we all just be satisfied" question.

this discussion (wich has been done to death) makes baby jesus cry (http://www.geocities.com/didsfactor3/babyjesus.jpg)

Because of the fun of going to university for like five years and studying :D

it takes 9 years befor you can be a GP, or at least it does here. and i would rather be a docter, and being paid the same as a "sanitary manager", than scrubbing toilets each days.

Almost everyone always wants to have more and more instead of just wanting to have enough of everything.



Strange, I don't think he said that.

Perhaps you need to review your reading comprehension.

No, I think that's exactly what he said. Being happy with just having enough is the pinnacle of cotentment and mediocrity from my point of view. It's the end of humanity if we all become like that.

A buch of Lethargians wallowing around in the mud. I'd rather die then be content like that.

People who love communism, with few exceptions, are spineless and willing to surrender everything in unflinching obedience to the state, whether or not it is in line with their interests, beliefs or morals.

You people are funny. :)

Being happy with just having enough is the pinnacle of cotentment and mediocrity from my point of view. It's the end of humanity if we all become like that.

Why?

this discussion (wich has been done to death) makes baby jesus cry (http://www.geocities.com/didsfactor3/babyjesus.jpg)



it takes 9 years befor you can be a GP, or at least it does here. and i would rather be a docter, and being paid the same as a "sanitary manager", than scrubbing toilets each days.

Perhaps in your case that is true.

But you cannot speak for ALL of the people whom possess the capacity to be doctors yet would be more happy or content doing elsewise in a system where doctors are in high need yet receive the same rewards as those doing far less work with far less ability.

Being a doctor is hard work and high stress and requires the constant application of enormous talent and ability. There are a great many people who would certainly choose to take a less difficult job for the same benefits - cleaning toilets would only be one option among many, many others.

In the end, you'd still end up with a shortage of capable doctors.

it takes 9 years befor you can be a GP, or at least it does here. and i would rather be a docter, and being paid the same as a "sanitary manager", than scrubbing toilets each days.

It takes 5,5 years before you take the exams here but it's virtually impossible to get accepted to med-school here. You need to have straight A:s and even then it's going to be a lottery.

All people aren't like you. It's easy to say that you would rather educate yourself to be a doctor than scrubbing toilets but would you do it when you could have the same level of live without it?

Why?

Nothing great was ever achieved by the content. The content accomplish nothing. They never seek to improve their lives.

Nothing great was ever achieved by the content. The content accomplish nothing. They never seek to improve their lives.

To expand on this point:

Accomplishment is the product of ambition.

Ambition is a state of not being "content" with the status quo.

The content accomplish nothing. The ambitious, not being content, strive to accomplish greater things and, ultimately, usually end up dragging those whom are "content" up with them.

Communism - in theory, dogma, and practice - ultimately slaps the ambitious down. A Communist society is ultimately the farmer that kills the goose that lays the golden eggs; taking the fruits of those whom had ambition to give them to those that lacked it, and ultimately depriving society of the progress those of an ambitious nature tend to provide.

We can't have some better off than others, after all. :rolleyes:

Nothing great was ever achieved by the content. The content accomplish nothing. They never seek to improve their lives.

I think you are stretching this beyond reason.

Striving to better oneself, to improve one's skills, to live a good, happy life among others living good, happy lives - that is healthy, that is human.

I don't know exactly what Doeltsch intended, but what I would guess is that he was referring to reckless greed for material objects - for more money. This is quite different. It indicates someone who cannot improve herself EXCEPT materially - who, indeed, may not even conceive of improvement independent of materialism. That is indicative of a depraved society, not of the glory of human beings.

Communism - in theory, dogma, and practice - ultimately slaps the ambitious down.

Nonsense.

A Communist society is ultimately the farmer that kills the goose that lays the golden eggs; taking the fruits of those whom had ambition to give them to those that lacked it, and ultimately depriving society of the progress those of an ambitious nature tend to provide.

The truly ambitious need not be bribed to pursue their ambitions.

it takes 9 years befor you can be a GP, or at least it does here. and i would rather be a docter, and being paid the same as a "sanitary manager", than scrubbing toilets each days.
I'll add one more point:

Considering that doctors will be in far shorter supply than "sanitary managers", and considering that the services they provide will certainly be both in high demand and necessary, you would unavoidably have to work longer hours doing doctor work than you would cleaning toilets.

Tedious hours of long work for ultimately the same pay... all because the work you do is in high demand without many willing (or capable, for that matter) to do it.

I am guessing that you are the type of person who is smart and prefers an intellectually stimulating occupation to pure grunt work, and I admire that. But many, many people capable of such work would prefer to do something easier under those circumstances. That ultimately translates into a greater shortage of doctors and more work for you... again, for equal pay than if you had chosen to do something else.

This problem is not limited to doctors in a Communist society, but extends to teachers and other professional fields that require a degree of talent and effort.

A: The content don't accomplish anything. Content people are lethargic.

B: When a country becomes communist, anybody with any ability becomes a host for all the people who can suddenly get away with being parasites. That being the case, talented and skilled people tend to vote with their feet pretty quickly when communism sets in. And then all that's left is content, useless people, with no vision or ambition, and as such no way to shake off the communism that oppresses them.

C: This means that content people ought to learn their lessons soon enough when communism sets in.

D: A good communist scenario is this: I bust my ass off in college to get a 4.0 GPA. But I do this at the cost of some of my social life. A friend of mine has a wild social life and is lucky to scrape together a 2.0. Communism says that the dean should take one point off MY 4.0 and give it to my friend, so that we will both have 3.0's. Since I have ability and he doesn't, I have to be the one whose blood gets sucked, and he can be the leech.

Uhh... everything? The farm ends up being a collectivist hellhole centered around Napoleon, with the entire population in blind, unswerving allegiance to him, this allegiance enforced, of course, by the dogs.

Indeed. Doesn't sound like communism to me. Orwell pointed out that it bore a far stronger resemblance to capitalism.

Animal Farm is an ardently leftist polemic against Stalinism. Why is Napoleon (and by extension Stalin) evil? Because he collaborates with the capitalists and ultimately restores capitalism. Honestly, re-read the last part.

The truly ambitious need not be bribed to pursue their ambitions.

It is not a matter of "bribing" them, but rather making it worth their while to put forward the effort.

True ambition finds its source in selfishness and the will to "get ahead". That is not bad; it's natural. Selfishness, properly understood, is a virtue - heck, Aristotle considered "Pride" to be among the greatest of virtues as well.

The progress we see in the world around us comes from humanism, which sprung forth from the willingness on the behalf of individuals to see the value of themselves as human beings and to understand what was in their personal interests. That which is truly in your interests certainly need not conflict with that which is in the interests of others...and when it does, it is perhaps less in your interests than you might originally have thought!

It seems to me, though, that a lack of concern regarding self-interest and a desire "not to be selfish" simply sets oneself up to be sacrificed by those that lack such qualms... as have tended to run history's Communist nations.

Communism says that the dean should take one point off MY 4.0 and give it to my friend, so that we will both have 3.0's.

No, it doesn't. Who tells you these things?

The primary reason communism fails is because it is far less efficient in the distribution of scarce resources as free markets. The free market allows buyers and sellers of goods to, based on the price system, produce the exact quantity of goods so that everyone who wants to buy a good can buy it and everyone who wants to sell a good can sell it. Any change to this system will result in excess supply or excess demand, which is wasteful use of our limited resources.

This efficiency in the face of scarcity increases our output and results in a rise of living standards for all members of the economy. Communism fails because it, in trying to make things equal, drags the members of the economy down to the lowest denominator, instead of promoting better standards for all-- from the lowest to the highest-- at the expense of inequality.

One could even argue that free market capitalism is preferred for moral reasons; if we are the sole owners of our bodies and minds, and labor is the result of our mind and body's actions, that we are the sole owners of the fruits of that labor. Thus any use of force to steal our property-- the fruits of our labor-- without voluntary exchange of it is claiming ownership over our minds and bodies, which is slavery.

What really sells me on free market capitalism over socialism or communism is that capitalism produces the most prosperity for the members of it's economy and enacts no force over their actions, as long as those actions do not result in applying force onto others.

Indeed. Doesn't sound like communism to me. Orwell pointed out that it bore a far stronger resemblance to capitalism.

Animal Farm is an ardently leftist polemic against Stalinism. Why is Napoleon (and by extension Stalin) evil? Because he collaborates with the capitalists and ultimately restores capitalism. Honestly, re-read the last part.

You sound like an intellectual. Intellectuals are capable of good things. But are you saying that you, as an intellectual, would honestly consent to being paid as much as a cashier at Burger King? Or as much as someone on welfare? You wouldn't. So stop being hypocritical and forsake a system you'd never support if it actually took root.

No, it doesn't. Who tells you these things?

Karl Marx? "Redistribution of wealth", hombre. And you know perfectly well that you wouldn't agree to that either. Tell me, given the conditions, what DOES communism say should happen?

It takes 5,5 years before you take the exams here but it's virtually impossible to get accepted to med-school here. You need to have straight A:s and even then it's going to be a lottery.

All people aren't like you. It's easy to say that you would rather educate yourself to be a doctor than scrubbing toilets but would you do it when you could have the same level of live without it?

here it takes 7 years before you're a master in medicine, and then you have to study and gain experience for another 2 years (for a GP) or more if you want to specialise.
to enter the studies you have to take an exam, and everybody who has 22/40 can follow medicine. most of the time it is about 33% or something.

and i know not all people are like me, but i guess there aren't a lot of people who want to study for 9 years and who are in it solely for the money.
i would also like to point out that the healthcare of Cuba is quite decent, probably the best sector of the whole island.

another thing that a lot of people seem to forget is that leninism is not the only kind of communism, there are a lot more other kinds of communism, wich get almost no attention. what about catalonia during the spanish civil war, or paris during the paris commune? i know they didn't last as long as the soviet union, but i never hear them mentioned in these debates.

It is not a matter of "bribing" them, but rather making it worth their while to put forward the effort.

Right. And for the truly ambitious, the effort and the achievement are the only necessary rewards.

True ambition finds its source in selfishness and the will to "get ahead".

No, it doesn't. Ambition need not be selfish at all. My ambition, for instance, could be saving a life, or helping my family. And seeking to, say, create a great work of art is hardly selfish either.

The progress we see in the world around us comes from humanism, which sprung forth from the willingness on the behalf of individuals to see the value of themselves as human beings and to understand what was in their personal interests.

"Value of themselves as human beings" presupposes that we see value in human beings in general - not exclusive, and therefore not selfish.

That which is truly in your interests certainly need not conflict with that which is in the interests of others...and when it does, it is perhaps less in your interests than you might originally have thought!

Agreed. Market systems, with their emphasis on rewards that are scarce and zero-sum (money), thus tend to produce people who fail to recognize their actual self-interest, and who thus compete ruthlessly with one another.

It seems to me, though, that a lack of concern regarding self-interest and a desire "not to be selfish" simply sets oneself up to be sacrificed by those that lack such qualms... as have tended to run history's Communist nations.

Altruism does not imply servility.

But are you saying that you, as an intellectual, would honestly consent to being paid as much as a cashier at Burger King?

Yes.

Karl Marx? "Redistribution of wealth", hombre.

Of WEALTH. Not of grades.

With communism you don't get competition. Competition spurs research and development. That means communism stands in the way of new technology and prevents companies from striving for greater efficiency as well as trying to assasinate the other company's spokesperson.

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/7842/zzzhaveityourwaygu1ut9.gif

Altruism does not imply servility.

Ah, but it does. A real altruist is willing to give up whatever is needed to anybody who needs it, and has no problem with parasites.

This is like not swatting at mosquitos because they have to eat, too. Eventually the mosquitos figure this out and only bite you, because you will let them. And then you get bitten so much that there's no blood left for you.

Not a real scenario, but illustrative of the point.

Example:

"Nobody respects an altruist, neither in private life nor in international affairs. An altruist is a person who keeps sacrificing himself and his values, which means: sacrificing his friends to his enemies, his allies to his protagonists, his interests to any cry for help, his strength to anyone's weakness, his convictions to anyone's wishes, the truth to any lie, the good to any evil."

-Ayn Rand

Or, yet more of Ayn Rand, who experienced the evils of communism firsthand:

"Since time immemorial and pre-industrial, 'greed' has been the accusation hurled at the rich by the concrete-bound illiterates who were unable to conceive of the source of wealth or of the motivation of those who produce it."

Or, in Ragnar Danneskjold's speech to Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged(it's not exact, as i don't have the book with me, but you can get the gist of it):

"There will be no justice in the world until the idea of Robin Hood is eradicated forever from people's minds. Robin Hood was famous for practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, and making some people pay for the luxury of his pity towards others. I am the man who steals from the poor and gives to the rich, or, more accurately, the man who steals from the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich."

A real altruist is willing to give up whatever is needed to anybody who needs it, and has no problem with parasites.

Human parasites don't tend to ask for what they NEED - indeed, that is why we call them "parasites."

Altruism only requires that we care for others, not that we meet every one of their desires at any expense.

Ayn Rand

Easily the worst source imaginable on the subject.

Of WEALTH. Not of grades.
Grades ARE wealth for the purposes of the scenario.

Grades ARE wealth for the purposes of the scenario.

How can you expect to have a reasonable discussion with anyone if you fiddle with definitions at whim?

here it takes 7 years before you're a master in medicine, and then you have to study and gain experience for another 2 years (for a GP) or more if you want to specialise.
to enter the studies you have to take an exam, and everybody who has 22/40 can follow medicine. most of the time it is about 33% or something.

and i know not all people are like me, but i guess there aren't a lot of people who want to study for 9 years and who are in it solely for the money.
i would also like to point out that the healthcare of Cuba is quite decent, probably the best sector of the whole island.

another thing that a lot of people seem to forget is that leninism is not the only kind of communism, there are a lot more other kinds of communism, wich get almost no attention. what about catalonia during the spanish civil war, or paris during the paris commune? i know they didn't last as long as the soviet union, but i never hear them mentioned in these debates.


You're completely right, except on two points: Cuba is a whole island, not a part (this is not so very important, but I just wanted to point that out).

And the second point: In the USSR leninism wasn't the worse (it also only took a couple of years), but it's stalinism which was the worse.

And apparantly, many people believe that communism/marxism equals stalinism and maoism, which is of course ridiculous.

Indeed. Doesn't sound like communism to me. Orwell pointed out that it bore a far stronger resemblance to capitalism.

Animal Farm is an ardently leftist polemic against Stalinism. Why is Napoleon (and by extension Stalin) evil? Because he collaborates with the capitalists and ultimately restores capitalism. Honestly, re-read the last part.
Animal Farm is one of my favorite books, as is 1984. People often overlook that Orwell was a Socialist.

I would hesitate to say that either book is a pure critique on Communism or Capitalism. Orwell was inspired to write both due to observing the evils of Stalinism... and I would go so far as to say that his criticisms can be just as easily extended to other societies to lesser extents as well, including the UK and the US.

The moral I gathered from both is not that Communism or Capitalism is wrong. Both conclusions miss the point. The point is that GOVERNMENT should be held at the end of a long stick and is never to be trusted, because today's benign bureaucrat can become tomorrow's enlightened despot.

Communism itself breeds a trust in the government. In a Communist society, you depend upon the government for your basic needs - in practice, the government owns the means of production and is in charge of distribution of goods. Living in such a society, you had best hope you can trust your government to be acting in your interests, as you have very little recourse if it's not.

Capitalist society is rife with problems. Governments in countries with a capitalist economy aren't to be trusted - some people are too stupid to see this, but at least we're not dumb enough to give it total control of our lives. The American system of government, at least back at its founding, was created with the notion that government cannot be trusted and is thus best limited in scope and ability to act with that understanding perpetually in sight. A truly capitalist society leaves no room for the government to regulate the economy, and people's needs are, by recognition, left in the hands of other people around them. In a Communist society, the needs of the people are ultimately left in the hands of the politicians running the government... whom are generally known to act in their own interests according to what is "expedient".

Communism, whenever it has been tried, has always turned into bastardized Communism that Communists tell the rest of us "isn't Communism". Capitalism, when it is tried, works for a time, improves conditions, and then begins to be bastardized by those who have gained because of it: usually, strong industries rise up that are successful which then proceed to demand that the government somehow "protect" them from competition. That bastardization is not Capitalism, though... it's modern Mercantilism. Other problems begin to arise when people see the natural inequities that exist in society and want to take from those whom have shown themselves to be successful in order to help out those whom are less so...

Yes.

Why? Because you've spent the last eight years in college, working for your grades and status, while the cashier has been sitting on his ass for eight years, playing the Xbox 720?

That seems unfair.

I see this whole thing as; Communism is a wonderful idea, but it cannot be implemented in a society like ours, or any other developed nation. If people are used to the market economy, competition, and upper and lower class differences you cannot force on them a class-less state.

"The workers will rise up", sure. Marx's theories are based on watching Industrial Revolution era workers, child labor, and general crappiness. Now, where every American has an iPod and an Xbox, countries have laws protecting the workers, like a minimum wage and working hours and such, there is no reason anymore.

If you were to want to run a small town, independent of all other entities, it would be a great idea to implement a communist society, however, of you're running a nation, it's very, very hard to convince so many people to forfeit everything...

Communism would work, but we missed the mark and now its age has passed...

Easily the worst source imaginable on the subject.

Someone who experienced communism firsthand is easily the worst source? Nice try.

Are you telling me that you lived in the early Soviet Union, too? I'd like to hear just one anecdote from someone other than a gov't employee or intellectual who viewed that period, or any other in the Soviet Union, positively.

I'm not ragging on intellectuals, but their views tend to be incompatible with practicality.

Right. And for the truly ambitious, the effort and the achievement are the only necessary rewards.Yes, and the freedom to achieve goals requires economic freedom towards such ends. As well, the achievement can be economic or that of power, and in many cases it is, so your truly ambitious person would want a freer economy for such aims.


No, it doesn't. Ambition need not be selfish at all. My ambition, for instance, could be saving a life, or helping my family. And seeking to, say, create a great work of art is hardly selfish either. Many ambitions are though, my ambition is to get a lot of money, accomplishment, and other things of that nature and that is selfish but under a market structure can be used to the benefit of other beings.


Agreed. Market systems, with their emphasis on rewards that are scarce and zero-sum (money), thus tend to produce people who fail to recognize their actual self-interest, and who thus compete ruthlessly with one another. Yes, zero-sum deals are what economists have been talking about for centuries, after all, the market is in no way a cooperative structure where consumers make agreements with producers for mutual benefit. As well, "actual self-interest" seems a vague claim, whatever act I make is what I deem my "actual self-interest" and any other metaphysical claim is useless. Competition is required to bring out the most effort, the only cooperation that is meaningful is cooperating to lower standards of success.

You're completely right, except on two points: Cuba is a whole island, not a part (this is not so very important, but I just wanted to point that out).

Pretty sure he ment governmental sector, like Defense or Public Education or somesuch, not physical region.

Animal Farm is one of my favorite books, as is 1984.

Same here.

People often overlook that Orwell was a Socialist.

Indeed.

I would hesitate to say that either book is a pure critique on Communism or Capitalism.

Animal Farm is aimed at Stalinism. 1984 is aimed more at totalitarianism in general.

The moral I gathered from both is not that Communism or Capitalism is wrong. Both conclusions miss the point.

Animal Farm pretty much presupposes that capitalism is wrong. That is is the underlying premise of the whole thing. If you do not understand this you do not understand the book at all.

Communism itself breeds a trust in the government. In a Communist society, you depend upon the government for your basic needs - in practice, the government owns the means of production and is in charge of distribution of goods.

You argued for this earlier, if I recall correctly, by noting that direct democracy is only possible on a small scale. I agree. That is why I support small-scale communism implemented through direct democracy.

Living in such a society, you had best hope you can trust your government to be acting in your interests, as you have very little recourse if it's not.

You do. It's called "democracy." That is the basis of the whole system; what do you think COLLECTIVE ownership of the means of production means, anyway?

A truly capitalist society leaves no room for the government to regulate the economy, and people's needs are, by recognition, left in the hands of other people around them.

More precisely, the rich - the owners of the means of production.

In a Communist society, the needs of the people are ultimately left in the hands of the politicians running the government... whom are generally known to act in their own interests according to what is "expedient".

And business owners aren't? The advantage of government is that it is democratic - it responds directly to popular pressure.

Communism, whenever it has been tried, has always turned into bastardized Communism that Communists tell the rest of us "isn't Communism".

Yeah... because it isn't.

Capitalism, when it is tried, works for a time, improves conditions, and then begins to be bastardized by those who have gained because of it: usually, strong industries rise up that are successful which then proceed to demand that the government somehow "protect" them from competition. That bastardization is not Capitalism, though... it's modern Mercantilism.

And is the inevitable consequence of any class system.

Powerful people, strangely enough, like to keep and expand that power.

I've got a question: all you who are against marxism, are you then for capitalism, and of course against theft?

Someone who experienced communism firsthand is easily the worst source? Nice try.

Ayn Rand experienced communism firsthand? I don't think so.

And we were talking about altruism, not communism.

Are you telling me that you lived in the early Soviet Union, too? I'd like to hear just one anecdote from someone other than a gov't employee or intellectual who viewed that period, or any other in the Soviet Union, positively.

Do you know what a "straw man" is?

Why does everybody hate Communism? It's not bad. It's good! People work and can get whatever they want from the store. Nobody is poor and nobody is rich.

Why is everybody so anti-communist???:mad:

If Leon Trotsky were alive today, he'd have my virginity.

...on second thought, he'd be over 120. Ewww.....

Ayn Rand experienced communism firsthand? I don't think so.

And we were talking about altruism, not communism.



Do you know what a "straw man" is?

I'm sorry but I don't know what a "straw man" is.
I know you weren't talking to me, but I'd like to know what it means, because I see it being used a lot.

You argued for this earlier, if I recall correctly, by noting that direct democracy is only possible on a small scale. I agree. That is why I support small-scale communism implemented through direct democracy. And of course the problem then arises with large scale coordination within the context of larger society and other groups and of the rights of those who do not fit in with their collective.


You do. It's called "democracy." That is the basis of the whole system; what do you think COLLECTIVE ownership of the means of production means, anyway?Democracy is not the highest virtue, and anyone who has been right but on the wrong end would know that. What needs to be preserved is economic freedom of individual actors, not the dominance of the majority over the minority and if anything there needs to be measures so that individuals can be freed from their fucktarded peers.


More precisely, the rich - the owners of the means of production. More precisely the entrepreneur who decides to take the effort to act to serve the interests of others. Rich or poor


And business owners aren't? The advantage of government is that it is democratic - it responds directly to popular pressure.The advantage of markets is that they act according to dollar votes in supporting the needs of individuals. Politicians frequently hide behind fancy words and rhetoric but marketers must be supported by their ability to serve the needs of individuals in the market place.


And is the inevitable consequence of any class system.

Powerful people, strangely enough, like to keep and expand that power.
It is the inevitable consequence of intervention in the economy by governmental figures. Whether or not there are classes is immaterial to whether or not there is the coercion of government, a case shown by the views of anarcho-capitalists. Governmental coercion prevents free trade.

Soheran, I notice that through all of that rant you studiously avoided telling anyone how firsthand experience makes Ayn Rand a bad source.

Or, for that matter, how NO EXPERIENCE makes YOU a good source.

Or how you can expect anything to get done in a society where coercion, intimidation and force are the rewards for those with ability.

And don't tell me that Leninism and Stalinism are not representative of communism. No other kind has ever been implemented.

Communism is the enemy of every minority. In this regard, it is not unlike pure democracy.

Yes, and the freedom to achieve goals requires economic freedom towards such ends.

Not capitalist "economic freedom," no.

As well, the achievement can be economic or that of power

Or neither.

Yes, zero-sum deals are what economists have been talking about for centuries, after all, the market is in no way a cooperative structure where consumers make agreements with producers for mutual benefit.

You misunderstand.

It's true that exchange is not zero-sum. The TERMS of exchange, on the other hand, are. If the worker makes more money, the capitalist makes less; if the capitalist makes more, the worker makes less.

Furthermore, competition is also zero-sum. If a company attracts a customer, some other company loses one; if it loses a customer, some other company gains one. And so on.

The reason is simple - if I have a certain quantity of money, or a certain good, no one else does. It's exclusive. The result is that we have a competitive society - a society where everyone is bent at making the most from everyone else as possible.

This need not be the case when a person's self-interest does not conflict with that of others, as is the case when people seek goods that are not scarce.

As well, "actual self-interest" seems a vague claim, whatever act I make is what I deem my "actual self-interest" and any other metaphysical claim is useless..

So you argue that a person who pursues her self-interest can never be mistaken? I can never make a decision that I later regret?

I'm sorry but I don't know what a "straw man" is.
I know you weren't talking to me, but I'd like to know what it means, because I see it being used a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_Man

Right. And for the truly ambitious, the effort and the achievement are the only necessary rewards.
In ideal? Sure.

But reality tends to have fundamental problems working according to "the ideal"... usually because the ideal failed to fit reality in the first place.



No, it doesn't. Ambition need not be selfish at all. My ambition, for instance, could be saving a life, or helping my family. And seeking to, say, create a great work of art is hardly selfish either.
Why do you want to save a life?

Such is not a bad thing and is worth doing. But ultimately you do it because helping others makes you feel good, which ultimately is a "selfish reason".

That is not bad.

Helping your family is selfish because your family has value to you and you should WANT to help them and see them thrive. That too should make you feel good. Need I point out that the same holds true for creating a great work of art? If tomorrow you create a great painting, you have every right to feel deep pride in that... but such great things tend not to be created for their own sake, but rather out of a desire to express one's self, which ultimately is selfish.

But this is not bad. It's natural, and I'd dare say good. I can see selfish reasons for saving a person's life... and those selfish reasons are good because they ensure that person continues to live on.


"Value of themselves as human beings" presupposes that we see value in human beings in general - not exclusive, and therefore not selfish.
I beg to differ.

I personally think we are only able to value other human beings insofar as we value ourselves, being human beings. I can value life because I live and can know its value, even to non-human beings. It is on that basis that I extend my respect to beings outside myself... but it would do very little good to sacrifice myself on their behalf. Doing so would undercut the value I place on their life by showing a lack of regard for the value I place on my own.

Selfish does not mean exclusive. Selfish means that one is willing to make value judgments based using what is good for one's self as a point of reference.



Agreed. Market systems, with their emphasis on rewards that are scarce and zero-sum (money), thus tend to produce people who fail to recognize their actual self-interest, and who thus compete ruthlessly with one another.

Yes, this I agree with. I argue in favor of capitalism over communism, but I believe that the best system would be where everyone agrees to cooperate, for that is in our best interests. But that cooperation has to be by full consent, and not by force or other coercion... and I'm not sure that's possible.

I would prefer to live in a capitalist society where people choose to cooperate than to live in a socialist system where everyone is forced to do so.



Altruism does not imply servility.
Insofar that it is not servile, I would argue that it is not entirely altruistic either.

I believe there is much to altruism that is ultimately selfish... and I think its a shame that those that hold such altruism cannot simply admit it.

I've got a question: all you who are against marxism, are you then for capitalism, and of course against theft?
I am for capitalism and therefore against the coercive loss of property by other beings unless for a consequential purpose that I see as a necessity.

Soheran, I notice that through all of that rant you studiously avoided telling anyone how firsthand experience makes Ayn Rand a bad source.

Because she does not have first-hand experience.

The Soviet Union was not communist. It didn't even claim to be communist.

And, again, I questioned her legitimacy as a source with regard to ALTRUISM - not communism, because she was seriously confused about the meaning and implications of the term. (I am far from the first to point this out.)

Or how you can expect anything to get done in a society where coercion, intimidation and force are the rewards for those with ability.

Another straw man.

And don't tell me that Leninism and Stalinism are not representative of communism.

Truth scares you, does it?

No other kind has ever been implemented.

So?

Communism is the enemy of every minority.

Unsupported assertions are so much fun.

Enough. This is going nowhere, and I've already spent far much longer on it than I intended to.

I will likely return later.

Soheran, I notice that through all of that rant you studiously avoided telling anyone how firsthand experience makes Ayn Rand a bad source.

Or, for that matter, how NO EXPERIENCE makes YOU a good source.

Or how you can expect anything to get done in a society where coercion, intimidation and force are the rewards for those with ability.

And don't tell me that Leninism and Stalinism are not representative of communism. No other kind has ever been implemented.

Communism is the enemy of every minority. In this regard, it is not unlike pure democracy.

Leninism and Stalinism are NOT the same as marxism, its not because those are the ones that have happened that you should see it as the example for marxism.

Well capitalism is the enemy of the majority, and yes marxism is pure democracy.

And don't tell me that Leninism and Stalinism are not representative of communism. No other kind has ever been implemented.

But there are other kinds of communism, most notably Trotskyism, which seems to be gaining a rather lot of support in recent years.

I am for capitalism and therefore against the coercive loss of property by other beings unless for a consequential purpose that I see as a necessity.

Well here's a great link to show what real capitalism is:

http://question-everything.mahost.org/images/work_faster.jpg

There you can see that capitalism and theft go hand in hand as the best friends.

Not capitalist "economic freedom," no. Yes, capitalistic economic freedom, unless you would tell me some other economic freedom that gives individuals(as opposed to communes) the ability to coordinate economic production to the goals of other individuals. That type of freedom goes against the idea of the controlling commune.


Or neither.Or both. Don't deny that these desires exist in many men. As well, don't think that individuals won't act on them if given half an opportunity. The only question is how can we use such desires towards beneficial ends rather than malefic.


You misunderstand.

It's true that exchange is not zero-sum. The TERMS of exchange, on the other hand, are. If the worker makes more money, the capitalist makes less; if the capitalist makes more, the worker makes less.

Furthermore, competition is also zero-sum. If a company attracts a customer, some other company loses one; if it loses a customer, some other company gains one. And so on.

The reason is simple - if I have a certain quantity of money, or a certain good, no one else does. It's exclusive. The result is that we have a competitive society - a society where everyone is bent at making the most from everyone else as possible.

This need not be the case when a person's self-interest does not conflict with that of others, as is the case when people seek goods that are not scarce.I see what you mean to some extent. However, this does not preclude the idea that these actions promote the most societal gain, as without this competition we have stagnation as opposed to progress. As well, you extract the wrong conclusion from a competitive society. "a society where everyone is bent at making the most from everyone else as possible." is wrong given the fact that people are not necessarily profit maximizers, seen from charitable acts as well as others. The only thing is that they should be free to choose their own ends.


So you argue that a person who pursues her self-interest can never be mistaken? I can never make a decision that I later regret?
I argue that the individual is the only one who can determine their self-interest and that individuals act in a manner that they deem to be the best action at the moment their decision is made, not the impossibility of regret. This means that I view actual self-interest to be best reflected by the actions of individuals and not something that any outside being can have any chance at determining.

All political systems, or absence of them, have problems. Communism is a wonderful theory, but is difficult to implement, thanks to human nature. You could argue it's better than other systems, you could argue it's worse. Every single political outcome has benefits and problems. Justice and equality are illusions, but if the masses believe in the illusion, all is good.

Well here's a great link to show what real capitalism is:

http://question-everything.mahost.org/images/work_faster.jpg

There you can see that capitalism and theft go hand in hand as the best friends.
Uh, no. Look at how I defined theft. In this comic no theft occurs. Not only that but no reference is made to the original capital which had to come from somewhere as he cannot have gotten his first machine from selling products he didn't have, which means that the factory owner is not thieving as he provided the valuable capital which had to come from previous labor. The fact is that if the laborer thought he could get what he wanted on his own he would have never made a deal with the capitalist. Obviously the deal is mutually beneficial, not only that but the worker, with the money earned from the capitalist can possibly save up his fortune to go into a more profitable endeavor and become a capitalist himself. The fact is that this comic shows an imperfect understanding of capitalism, not what real capitalism is.

Leninism and Stalinism are NOT the same as marxism, its not because those are the ones that have happened that you should see it as the example for marxism.

Well capitalism is the enemy of the majority, and yes marxism is pure democracy.
Capitalism is the friend of the majority and of the minority. The individuals can independently seek their own ends and the majority benefits from the economic growth and the constant striving of entrepreneurs to serve their needs.

Uh, no. Look at how I defined theft. In this comic no theft occurs. Not only that but no reference is made to the original capital which had to come from somewhere, which means that the factory owner is not thieving as he provided the valuable capital which had to come from previous labor.

No theft? The bussinessman steals money from the workers.
Previous labor? He? No he got this money because people work for him, he sells products, and gives them only a LITTLE part of the sale.

Capitalism is the friend of the majority and of the minority. The individuals can independently seek their own ends and the majority benefits from the economic growth and the constant striving of entrepreneurs to serve their needs.

Capitalism friend of the minority?
That's probably why there are so many poor workers, and so many workers who are against capitalism.
That's probably why marxism, socialism, fascism, nazism, etc were invented. Because capitalism was the friend of everyone, some seeked other, and maybe better, solutions.
If you're born poor you've hardly gotten any chance of climbing up the ladder of wealth.

While I'm on the left politically, I recognize that communism is practically impossible. In any grouping of human beings, there will always be those who wish to seize power and those who are willing to follow them. Humans are not equal, some are smarter, some are stronger, some have a greater work ethic and some have more charisma. There will always be people that will use their gifts to gain as much influence for themselves. They might have noble intentions or selfish ones, but I find it inconceivable that human nature could ever be subdued to the point where true communism could develop. Ultimately, what happens if a group of people within a communist country don't *want* to be communists? Communism does not allow for that, and they likely would have to be put down through coercive means.

As much as many parts of modern capitalism disgust me, our system of democracy and capitalism allows for us to impose conditions on business to regulate the excesses of capitalism. I don't think we do a good enough job making sure that business is held accountable for things like pollution, but that doesn't mean the whole system should be thrown out.

A communist society could work at a smaller scale, such as a local village level, but a large society could never work under communism. Eventually, a strong man or charismatic leader would take over and turn it into a dictatorship.

Animal Farm pretty much presupposes that capitalism is wrong. That is is the underlying premise of the whole thing. If you do not understand this you do not understand the book at all.
First of all, you really need to learn not to express disagreement with your personal opinion as a lack of comprehension regarding a subject. It's an awful habit, friend. :)

I understand Animal Farm quite fine.

The system that existed on the farm prior to the Revolution was not representative of capitalism. The book is a satire on Stalinism, as you yourself noted. The actions of the farmer and what he represents are reflective of age old Czarist system that was present in Russia prior to the Soviet Revolution, and thus certainly did not represent capitalism - it was still very much a fuedal economy.

As the pigs represent the revolutionary leaders, Orwell was pointing out that they did have good reason to revolt. I'm not sure you'll find a Capitalist anywhere that will state that the Czarist system in Russia was by any means GOOD...

Orwell's critique on the Czarist system does not translate into a critique on capitalism. If you remember correctly, when the animals began to spread word of their revolution to other lands, it was not received so well on farms where the animals were treated well. Those lands represented Western Capitalist Republics, such as the United States. It parallels how, after the Soviets had their revolution and tried to spread it abroad, many other societies passed it off as well.

At the end of the book, when the pigs are meeting with the leaders of the other farms, the point was not that they had become capitalists, but rather that they had turned into the authoritarian czarists that had ruled over them prior and were different in no way... fascists.

Fascism is distinctly different from capitalism, despite what many socialist polemics like to state.

You argued for this earlier, if I recall correctly, by noting that direct democracy is only possible on a small scale. I agree. That is why I support small-scale communism implemented through direct democracy.
I have no problem with small-scale communism implemented through direct democracy at local levels. People would be free to live in such communes by choice.

But to acknowledge the necessity of a communist society being run in such a manner ultimately acknowledges the fact that communism will not work on a national level, nor, by extension, a world-wide level. And would communes be self-sufficient, or would they have to interact with other communes? And if they must interact for outside goods and resources, what type of structures do they set up to manage such interactions without setting up the broader-sized government we are trying to avoid?



You do. It's called "democracy." That is the basis of the whole system; what do you think COLLECTIVE ownership of the means of production means, anyway?
I understand the principles of collective ownership. But you yourself have admitted that in order to be extended to the fields you would like to see government extended and STILL be accountable, this democracy would have to be kept to a very local level.

This creates a host of other problems, particularly in the relations between the various communes around the world. Relations between city-states were never "ideal", after all... look at Ancient Greece.


More precisely, the rich - the owners of the means of production.

Actually, no.

The owners of the means of production in a capitalist society are those capable of getting capital from investors and, from that, able to produce value in the form of profits and goods. The people who do that tend not to be wealthy in the beginning - it takes quite a bit of skill to be successful in such endeavors.

Ah, but maybe you were talking about those venerable corporations whose logos we see on a daily basis. Who owns those? Well... they are owned by stockholders. Millions upon millions of stockholders... and admittedly, many times those stockholders are wealthier than your wildest imagination, but more often than not they are people like the guy down the street who bought a few stocks with hopes of a payoff sometime down the line when he sells them to someone else. Does anyone you know have money in a pension or mutual fund for retirement someday? Well... that money doesn't just sit in a vault somewhere - it's invested to earn them interest and, in putting their money in that organization, they've bought a portion of that group's portfolio and thus own a small bit of those companies as well.

The ownership of the means of production goes WELL beyond just a few rich guys sitting in a country club somewhere under capitalism... it is available to anyone with the means of gathering together willing investors to promote an idea or invest in a portfolio.


And business owners aren't? The advantage of government is that it is democratic - it responds directly to popular pressure.
Usually not. There are tons of red tape and dissenting opinions - the ability of popular pressure to get anything done is inversely proportionate to its scale...

And when you move beyond the scale that allows for democracy into the scale that requires a "representational Republic" form of government, it just gets worse since direct pressure CAN'T be applied.

Yeah... because it isn't.
No, it isn't.

Because pure Communism is an ideal which conflicts with what is ultimately viable with reality. It is a pipe dream offered for some future generation... dreams of the "True and Pure Communist Society" are the opiate of the masses.

And is the inevitable consequence of any class system.
Class systems are unavoidable, as evidenced by reality. Attempts to avoid a class system have invariably created a super-class. See: "The Pigs" in Animal Farm...


Powerful people, strangely enough, like to keep and expand that power.
Better to acknowledge that, in any system, there are going to be powerful people and limit them accordingly... by keeping their ability to act through government to a minimum by keeping government itself as small as possible, and setting them against eachother in other ways through competition much like we see under capitalism...

What can one say of communism that has not been exhausted above every lectern and barstool? I respect Soheran enough that I do not want to waste his time with tired discussions: if he even returns.

I will ask though, what those who consider themselves communist think of the diversity of their position. I have had conversations with many communists and each one has had a completely different idea of what a practical communism would be. More than that, each one has dismissed all prior communisms as false examples. So I ask, how would you implement such a system. To me, communism seems to be like a myth of El Dorado. The conquistadors spoke of a solid gold city, but when the real source was ultimately discovered-a city of clay-the myth lived on and grew anyway.

No theft? The bussinessman steals money from the workers.
Previous labor? He? No he got this money because people work for him, he sells products, and gives them only a LITTLE part of the sale. Then WHERE did the original capital come from? He can't have sold products made from a machine he didn't have, therefore the machine must have come from somewhere. That somewhere ends up being previous labor. So? The deal was not for a portion of the sale, both sides benefit and neither had their property rights violated which was how I defined stealing. If the workers wanted a bigger portion then they would have signed a deal with a different capitalist or put their efforts in becoming a higher class of labor.


Capitalism friend of the minority?
That's probably why there are so many poor workers, and so many workers who are against capitalism.
That's probably why marxism, socialism, fascism, nazism, etc were invented. Because capitalism was the friend of everyone, some seeked other, and maybe better, solutions.
If you're born poor you've hardly gotten any chance of climbing up the ladder of wealth.
Yes, because poverty has only increased since the formation of capitalism and the average worker now sleeps in a tent.:rolleyes: The economic conditions of capitalist nations get better and better for the average person and the minority I spoke of was the individual who now gets to determine the end to which he wants to run his own life. Because capitalism isn't utopia men tried to invent better systems, they weren't better though and most of the ideas have failed.
If you are born poor you can rise to a higher class through better applying your talents to improving your status. This means that if you came from a non-educated background you can try to go to vocational school or college, this means that if you came from a college background you can try to apply your talents to putting your skills and talents to other uses. Individuals have choices and they have the ability to determine the best choice at their disposal.

What can one say of communism that has not been exhausted above every lectern and barstool? I respect Soheran enough that I do not want to waste his time with tired discussions: if he even returns.

I will ask though, what those who consider themselves communist think of the diversity of their position. I have had conversations with many communists and each one has had a completely different idea of what a practical communism would be. More than that, each one has dismissed all prior communisms as false examples. So I ask, how would you implement such a system. To me, communism seems to be like a myth of El Dorado. The conquistadors spoke of a solid gold city, but when the real source was ultimately discovered-a city of clay-the myth lived on and grew anyway.

Well I think that all those different opinions about marxism is because there are so many different branches of marxism, you've got: leninism, trotskyism, anarcho-communism, maoism, stalinism, ...

Ayn Rand experienced communism firsthand? I don't think so.

And we were talking about altruism, not communism.



Do you know what a "straw man" is?

About Rand: "Rand described We the Living as the most autobiographical of her novels, its theme being the brutality of life under communist rule in Russia." Communism only survives on altruism or compulsion. And you know a lot more about straw men than I do. Sensible people don't make nearly as much use of them.

Then WHERE did the original capital come from? He can't have sold products made from a machine he didn't have, therefore the machine must have come from somewhere. That somewhere ends up being previous labor. So? The deal was not for a portion of the sale, both sides benefit and neither had their property rights violated which was how I defined stealing. If the workers wanted a bigger portion then they would have signed a deal with a different capitalist or put their efforts in becoming a higher class of labor.


Yes, because poverty has only increased since the formation of capitalism and the average worker now sleeps in a tent.:rolleyes: The economic conditions of capitalist nations get better and better for the average person and the minority I spoke of was the individual who now gets to determine the end to which he wants to run his own life. Because capitalism isn't utopia men tried to invent better systems, they weren't better though and most of the ideas have failed.
If you are born poor you can rise to a higher class through better applying your talents to improving your status. This means that if you came from a non-educated background you can try to go to vocational school or college, this means that if you came from a college background you can try to apply your talents to putting your skills and talents to other uses. Individuals have choices and they have the ability to determine the best choice at their disposal.

How about theft? One of his ancestors stole money, gold or some other things from his colony, and that's why his family had more money then the rest, so it IS theft.
Signed a better contract? In what world do you live?
It's isn't like you can choose how much you get paid when you can't even read or write, not everyone has this luxury we have you know.

Ooh but capitalism IS utopia to, just like anarchism and marxism.
How can you say that we live in a capitalist world, when there are thousands of mexicans running to the US, and thousands of africans running to Spain.

Not everyone has the ability to go to school, not everyone has a school nearby, not everone has enough money to go to school, so these people can't climb up the ladder of wealth, or don't these people count for you?

Even if these kids have great talents, they won't climb up the ladder of wealth, because they can't get a proper education, job, etc.

Do you really think that everyone has, like you, a pc, internet, can write and read, can go to school has a job, etc?

Well I think that all those different opinions about marxism is because there are so many different branches of marxism, you've got: leninism, trotskyism, anarcho-communism, maoism, stalinism, ...

Im more than aware of that. However within each branch, each individual communist seems to have their own ideal of the "real" communism.

Or both. Don't deny that these desires exist in many men. As well, don't think that individuals won't act on them if given half an opportunity. The only question is how can we use such desires towards beneficial ends rather than malefic.


The analogy of fire comes to mind. When it is on it's own and unrestrained fire can cause immense destruction, but when controlled it can be used to drive the engines of the world.

Im more than aware of that. However within each branch, each individual communist seems to have their own ideal of the "real" communism.

If that's the case, then I can't help you, I'm sorry.

Well I think that all those different opinions about marxism is because there are so many different branches of marxism, you've got: leninism, trotskyism, anarcho-communism, maoism, stalinism, ...
Yes, that is his point though.

Communists cannot agree on what "Communism" is. Examples of these philosophies as they have been in the past are dismissed as ultimately flawed. In addition, between the philosophies you have mentioned, there has traditionally been considerable debate between them regarding whether some groups are even really "truly Communist" or orthodox...

I swear, debates with Communists ultimately seem to differ very little from debates with Christians. Both present non-falsifiable points-of-view with pie-in-the-sky visions of a world-to-come that will never be because it dramatically conflicts with human nature. Both have this wonderful tendency to claim that their political views would work wonderfully if they were ever implemented and have this great tendency to outright dismiss any and all examples to the contrary regarding the greatest abuses of power as "not really C....." (fill in the blanks) or "not my branch of C....."...

Okay, now that I've most likely managed to offend EVERYONE, I'd best be going. :D

All political systems, or absence of them, have problems. Communism is a wonderful theory, but is difficult to implement, thanks to human nature. You could argue it's better than other systems, you could argue it's worse. Every single political outcome has benefits and problems. Justice and equality are illusions, but if the masses believe in the illusion, all is good.

Despicable. You are the kind of anti-ideologue who is beneath pity. Much like James Taggart in Atlas Shrugged. By your logic, injustice for all is justice for all. Everyone is free so long as nobody goes unoppressed. Everyone is smart as long as they're all kept equally stupid. everyone is rich as long as we're all dirt poor.

All that is too contemptible to contemplate.

Im more than aware of that. However within each branch, each individual communist seems to have their own ideal of the "real" communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Schools_of_communism

These are the organized ones, let alone the floaters who don't subscribe to any school in particular and just pick and choose random bits and pieces from everywhere.

Yes, that is his point though.

Communists cannot agree on what "Communism" is. Examples of these philosophies as they have been in the past are dismissed as ultimately flawed. In addition, between the philosophies you have mentioned, there has traditionally been considerable debate between them regarding whether some groups are even really "truly Communist" or orthodox...

I swear, debates with Communists ultimately seem to differ very little from debates with Christians. Both present non-falsifiable points-of-view with pie-in-the-sky visions of a world-to-come that will never be because it dramatically conflicts with human nature. Both have this wonderful tendency to claim that their political views would work wonderfully if they were ever implemented and have this great tendency to outright dismiss any and all examples to the contrary regarding the greatest abuses of power as "not really C....." (fill in the blanks) or "not my branch of C....."...

Okay, now that I've most likely managed to offend EVERYONE, I'd best be going. :D

No don't leave, it's great to hear someone else say this.

I swear, debates with Communists ultimately seem to differ very little from debates with Christians. Both present non-falsifiable points-of-view with pie-in-the-sky visions of a world-to-come that will never be because it dramatically conflicts with human nature. Both have this wonderful tendency to claim that their political views would work wonderfully if they were ever implemented and have this great tendency to outright dismiss any and all examples to the contrary regarding the greatest abuses of power as "not really C....." (fill in the blanks) or "not my branch of C....."...



Which is part of why I've long classified communism as a religion.

How about theft? One of his ancestors stole money, gold or some other things from his colony, and that's why his family had more money then the rest, so it IS theft. Except that we don't have any reason to assume that any law-breaking action occurred there. Lots of families have more money without theft occurring, so I'd argue that it is not likely to be theft.

Signed a better contract? In what world do you live?
A world where there are multiple employers, which is how most of the capitalist world is.

It's isn't like you can choose how much you get paid when you can't even read or write, not everyone has this luxury we have you know.
Yes, you can choose between employers, your choice might be limited by ability but you can choose. As well, most people in capitalistic nations can read and write.


Ooh but capitalism IS utopia to, just like anarchism and marxism.
How can you say that we live in a capitalist world, when there are thousands of mexicans running to the US, and thousands of africans running to Spain.Capitalism isn't utopian, it does not make broad claims of utopia and perfection. Easily, most successful nations are capitalism based, and the ones that are becoming more successful are using capitalism. I don't see how the movement of individuals has anything to do with whether or not capitalism is dominant or not.

Not everyone has the ability to go to school, not everyone has a school nearby, not everone has enough money to go to school, so these people can't climb up the ladder of wealth, or don't these people count for you? I am referring to people who live in a developed economy, not about people in other nations where everyone acknowledges that the economy is screwed up, but even there capitalism is the proper method as it attracts foreign investment, allows for free trade, and provides a method for accumulation of wealth.

Even if these kids have great talents, they won't climb up the ladder of wealth, because they can't get a proper education, job, etc.Yes, if you live in an underdeveloped economy life will suck and capitalism is not responsible for the fact that it does suck.


Do you really think that everyone has, like you, a pc, internet, can write and read, can go to school has a job, etc?If they live in a capitalist nation then yes it is likely that they will have high literacy, have school education and a job. If they live in some third world country shit hole then of course not, but if their country is pursuing capitalistic policies then their children or grandchildren might have that opportunity.

Yes, that is his point though.

Communists cannot agree on what "Communism" is. Examples of these philosophies as they have been in the past are dismissed as ultimately flawed. In addition, between the philosophies you have mentioned, there has traditionally been considerable debate between them regarding whether some groups are even really "truly Communist" or orthodox...

I swear, debates with Communists ultimately seem to differ very little from debates with Christians. Both present non-falsifiable points-of-view with pie-in-the-sky visions of a world-to-come that will never be because it dramatically conflicts with human nature. Both have this wonderful tendency to claim that their political views would work wonderfully if they were ever implemented and have this great tendency to outright dismiss any and all examples to the contrary regarding the greatest abuses of power as "not really C....." (fill in the blanks) or "not my branch of C....."...

Okay, now that I've most likely managed to offend EVERYONE, I'd best be going. :D

I think that deserves the secular equivalent of an "Amen"

Yes, that is his point though.

Communists cannot agree on what "Communism" is. Examples of these philosophies as they have been in the past are dismissed as ultimately flawed. In addition, between the philosophies you have mentioned, there has traditionally been considerable debate between them regarding whether some groups are even really "truly Communist" or orthodox...


You put that far more eloquently and sensibly than I did, thank you. This is what I was getting at, those that consider themselves communist are usually convinced entirely of the validity of their own (individual) ideal, and are dismissive of others. They can also go so far as to demonize the failure of actions branded communist. Communism never fails due to problems with the theory or idea -but instead because "It isnt really communist" or "people are too stupid".

I've grown tired of the argument that communism would work if everyone were more enlightened. If you design a system that is meant to govern people, and it fails repeatedly because of how people act: Then it is the idea that has failed the peolpe, not the other way around.

To state what I know of Animal Farm:

Old Major was Lenin and Marx

Snowball was Trotsky (Napoleon chased him away as a "traitor", as Stalin did)

Napoleon was Stalin

Mr. Jones was Nicholas II

Mr. Frederick was Hitler and Nazi Germany (he betrayed them with fake money, not to mention Frederick is a German name)

Boxer (reference to Boxer Rebellion) was the working class who blindly trusted his leaders (the Pigs) and was sent off to be killed for whiskey, while all the horses represent upper, lower, and middle classes.

The dogs are the "Secret Police" and bodyguards of Napoleon

It was satirical of the corruption that followed the Russian Revolution, not the ideas of Marx (Orwell agreed with some of his politics) and Lenin (Orwell respected him).

Orwell was the donkey, IIRC.

Except that we don't have any reason to assume that any law-breaking action occurred there. Lots of families have more money without theft occurring, so I'd argue that it is not likely to be theft.

A world where there are multiple employers, which is how most of the capitalist world is.

Yes, you can choose between employers, your choice might be limited by ability but you can choose. As well, most people in capitalistic nations can read and write.

Capitalism isn't utopian, it does not make broad claims of utopia and perfection. Easily, most successful nations are capitalism based, and the ones that are becoming more successful are using capitalism. I don't see how the movement of individuals has anything to do with whether or not capitalism is dominant or not.
I am referring to people who live in a developed economy, not about people in other nations where everyone acknowledges that the economy is screwed up, but even there capitalism is the proper method as it attracts foreign investment, allows for free trade, and provides a method for accumulation of wealth.
Yes, if you live in an underdeveloped economy life will suck.

If they live in a capitalist nation then yes it is likely that they will have high literacy, have school education and a job. If they live in some third world country shit hole then of course not, but if their country is pursuing capitalistic policies then their children or grandchildren might have that opportunity.

As I read it you don't give a shit about the people living in the thirth world, as I already thought. You're only talking about the rich countries, like there are the most of them.
But hey I got news for you: only a small part of the world is in this group of rich countries, so you just let all the others out as if they are nothing.

But you know the words 'fourth world'?
Those are poor people in rich countries, they don't have a choice to work where-ever they want to, they can't all read or write, and they certanly don't have internet connection, maybe a computer, very maybe.


You're last point: an example: in Belgium (I suppose we all agree its an industrialised country) only 1/5 of al the people has acces to internet, and about 10% of workless people.
the US: (also an industrialised country) 95% can read and write, which means 5 per cent CAN'T read or write in the US.

5% may be a lot, but you have to admit that is a rather nice ratio by comparison. I mean, it could use some fixing to be sure but even so.

5% may be a lot, but you have to admit that is a rather nice ratio by comparison. I mean, it could use some fixing to be sure but even so.

yeah but still its one out of every 20 persons who can neither read nor write in the US, an industrialised country, I think it's a lot and way to much

Orwell was the donkey, IIRC.

Yes, more than likely, since although Orwell himself was socialist, he was skeptical of communism.

on another note, I still haven't been flamed for the ownage of cheesyjelly :eek: :D

the thing with capitalism, khaban, is that it doesnt give a shit about people who can't compete and don't try, or can't market themselves and don't try.

If the worker does not gain anything at all from working in a factory, why does he work there at all?

What the worker gets out of the deal is money now. This as opposed to money in ten years, when the capital is finally done paid for (I've heard that most investments aren't profitable the first 10 years)

Also it gives him a more predictable wage - x $ each month. The income of the capitalist is all dependent on the different ups and downs on the market, whereas his wage is stable and predictable.

If the worker did really pay an unfair amount of his wage to the capitalist, even after these factors are taken into account, he would in a capitalist society be able to start a collective. I am sure that the banks would be interested in providing him with a loan, if the profits really are that great. That or the members could use their savings. Should the collectives prove to be more efficient than the corporations,they would quickly force them out of the market.

This doesn't happen, though, as the best arrangements for everyone seems to be working for the capitalist.

yeah but still its one out of every 20 persons who can neither read nor write in the US, an industrialised country, I think it's a lot and way to much

Well obviously it's always going to be a work-in-progress, and we should always strive to lower that number, but on the other hand it's certainly not a terrible place. It's "only" fairly good, so let's just appreciate how far we have come and then go farther.

on another note, I still haven't been flamed for the ownage of cheesyjelly :eek: :D

the thing with capitalism, khaban, is that it doesnt give a shit about people who can't compete and don't try, or can't market themselves and don't try.

And that is the big problem with capitalism

And that is the big problem with capitalism
that was intended to come across as "it doesnt give a shit about useless people, lazy people, unskilled people and people who aren't willing to take risks.

When people say that Communism failed because of human nature, I think they mean that the USSR collapsed. Drawing any conclusions about human nature is a little presumptuous, I think.

Is it human nature to want to own stuff? Sure- I have that drive, and I bet most everyone else does, too. But isn't it also human nature to want to help others? I have that drive as well. Humans are complicated machines, and the social structures they create are even more complicated.

I'm no pinko, but I am concerned when I see nominal growth in the economy and stagnation in wages. It's like if I cook 30 hamburgers in an hour and get paid $5, and then cook 45 hamburgers in an hour... and get paid $5.

If the worker does not gain anything at all from working in a factory, why does he work there at all?

What the worker gets out of the deal is money now. This as opposed to money in ten years, when the capital is finally done paid for (I've heard that most investments aren't profitable the first 10 years)

Also it gives him a more predictable wage - x $ each month. The income of the capitalist is all dependent on the different ups and downs on the market, whereas his wage is stable and predictable.

If the worker did really pay an unfair amount of his wage to the capitalist, even after these factors are taken into account, he would in a capitalist society be able to start a collective. I am sure that the banks would be interested in providing him with a loan, if the profits really are that great. That or the members could use their savings. Should the collectives prove to be more efficient than the corporations,they would quickly force them out of the market.

This doesn't happen, though, as the best arrangements for everyone seems to be working for the capitalist.

Theoretically, he is producing money but losing most of it to the overseers. He does, in fact gain from what he had before he started working, but if you consider the products of his labor to be money, then his money is indeed being stolen. The average CEO, though, makes so much more than the base workers that it is rather disturbing. Also, by theory, he works there because he must sell his labor to be able survive in the world.

As I read it you don't give a shit about the people living in the thirth world, as I already thought. You're only talking about the rich countries, like there are the most of them.
But hey I got news for you: only a small part of the world is in this group of rich countries, so you just let all the others out as if they are nothing.Um, no, I just don't consider the third world reflective of capitalism as the third world had economic issues not caused by capitalism and many of them for long periods of time never practiced capitalism. So, in order to best view things it is necessary to exclude them from analysis, although, if we include them then we can note that nations that trade and practice some level of capitalism are better than the ones that don't or that practice it badly. Their standards of living improve through free trade and other measures though as free trade allows them to trade their services for money that fuels economic growth.

But you know the words 'fourth world'?
Those are poor people in rich countries, they don't have a choice to work where-ever they want to, they can't all read or write, and they certanly don't have internet connection, maybe a computer, very maybe.Oh, the 4th world really refers to indigenous populations that don't decide to join the mainstream or to the poorest of poor nations.


You're last point: an example: in Belgium (I suppose we all agree its an industrialised country) only 1/5 of al the people has acces to internet, and about 10% of workless people.
the US: (also an industrialised country) 95% can read and write, which means 5 per cent CAN'T read or write in the US.
1/5th? No, 1/5th of Belgium has High-speed internet which, hell, I don't even have high-speed internet. The number of internet users in Belgium ends up being close to half, and that does not take into account the fact that in many areas libraries can be used for internet access. As well, the percent with internet is rapidly increasing.

The literacy in the US is 99.9% not 95%.

When people say that Communism failed because of human nature, I think they mean that the USSR collapsed. Drawing any conclusions about human nature is a little presumptuous, I think.

Is it human nature to want to own stuff? Sure- I have that drive, and I bet most everyone else does, too. But isn't it also human nature to want to help others? I have that drive as well. Humans are complicated machines, and the social structures they create are even more complicated.

I'm no pinko, but I am concerned when I see nominal growth in the economy and stagnation in wages. It's like if I cook 30 hamburgers in an hour and get paid $5, and then cook 45 hamburgers in an hour... and get paid $5.

Thats when you get people together and ask for a raise on the grounds that your productivity has gone up.

When people say that Communism failed because of human nature, I think they mean that the USSR collapsed. Drawing any conclusions about human nature is a little presumptuous, I think.

If there is a flaw in human nature that causes communism to not work, then it must be the same flaw that contributes to the flaws in capitalism: greed.

The literacy in the US is 99.9% not 95%.

Actual functional literacy is not even close to that, it's probably closer to 75-80% given the influx of immigration and large numbers of people who did not finish school.

If there is a flaw in human nature that causes communism to not work, then it must be the same flaw that contributes to the flaws in capitalism: greed.

About that...
Since time immemorial and pre-industrial, 'greed' has been the accusation hurled at the rich by the concrete-bound illiterates who were unable to conceive of the source of wealth or of the motivation of those who produce it.

Why does everybody hate Communism? It's not bad. It's good!

Well ya know, I always thought it was bad. But just right now? You convinced me otherwise. Thank you, comrade! :)

People work and can get whatever they want from the store.

That's consumerism. Not communism.

In soviet russia, store goes to YOU!

Yes, more than likely, since although Orwell himself was socialist, he was skeptical of communism.

actually he just really really hated stalin

About that...

"Since time immemorial and pre-industrial, 'greed' has been the accusation hurled at the rich by the concrete-bound illiterates who were unable to conceive of the source of wealth or of the motivation of those who produce it.

Well, she did consider homosexuality to be quite disgusting and wrong, and the sex in her novels was often bordering rape, and she did defend business' right to discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, or anything else. She also valued individual rights over civil rights. She also believed the only moral social system was a laissez-faire capitalist one, or basically, business with no government regulations. She was also strongly against pacifism.

Well, she did consider homosexuality to be quite disgusting and wrong, and the sex in her novels was often bordering rape, and she did defend business' right to discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, or anything else. She also valued individual rights over civil rights. She also believed the only moral social system was a laissez-faire capitalist one, or basically, business with no government regulations. She was also strongly against pacifism.

I prefer the morality of Christ, a morality based on Love thy Neighbor, and "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends", over Ayn's morality of a thug. Remember, kids, wealth makes might, and might makes right. Let the Ayn Rand flaming commence!



Thats when you get people together and ask for a raise on the grounds that your productivity has gone up.

Sounds like a union to me. Union membership, a descendant of Communism that we've come to generally like, is at an all-time low in the US, too. That's probably why wages haven't kept up. That, or globablization.

homosexuality: does indicate some kind of personal warpage
sex in ayn rand's novels: mirrors her set of value's, and the selfish pleasure the concerned women derive from the act and the circumstances
discrimination: im not racist, and neither was she. still, if i own a business, i really ought to get to decide who i can hire, shouldnt i? should i be required to hire a black felon simply because he can accuse me of being racist if i dont? i AM the one taking the risk, both in the business itslef and in my employees, after all.
government interference: very rarely beneficial. smith's laws apply here because people will simply stop fueling the business if it produces bad products, or overcharges people, or does something they consider objectionable. supply and demand and competition mean that a laissez-faire economy can function every bit as well as a mixed one.

Actual functional literacy is not even close to that, it's probably closer to 75-80% given the influx of immigration and large numbers of people who did not finish school.
Possibly, but the US cannot be blamed for having immigrants and the people who drop out did choose to drop out in many cases.

And that is the big problem with capitalism
Not really. If one does not try then one should not receive. Wealth comes from productivity and one should not get a share if one does not contribute to productivity at all in any fashion.
When people say that Communism failed because of human nature, I think they mean that the USSR collapsed. Drawing any conclusions about human nature is a little presumptuous, I think. They do mean that to some extent, however, part of the failure is that to create a new socialist man who is totally selfless. As well, the selflessness of most individuals is not their dominant characteristic. Communism fails though due to the nature of the economic problem as well as human nature.

still, if i own a business, i really ought to get to decide who i can hire, shouldnt i? should i be required to hire a black felon simply because he can accuse me of being racist if i dont? i AM the one taking the risk, both in the business itslef and in my employees, after all.
government interference: very rarely beneficial. smith's laws apply here because people will simply stop fueling the business if it produces bad products, or overcharges people, or does something they consider objectionable. supply and demand and competition mean that a laissez-faire economy can function every bit as well as a mixed one.

Except in all the cases in which this doesn't happen. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, the East India Tea Company, chlorofluorocarbons, trans-fats, the Pullman Strike, even slavery. All of these are stories where the market failed to bring about justice or health or peace.

What about the very good instances of government regulation?
1. Federal Reserve
2. FDIC
3. EPA
4. Anti-trust cases
5. Government standards (e.g. on unleaded gasoline and its transport and use.)
6. Patent and intellectual property rights

on another note, I still haven't been flamed for the ownage of cheesyjelly :eek: :D

the thing with capitalism, khaban, is that it doesnt give a shit about people who can't compete and don't try, or can't market themselves and don't try.

It also doesn't give a shit about those whom don't have the ability, nor have have been given the opportunity. It favors those born into higher classes far more than it helps those born in lower classes.

WITH THAT SAID:

Communism, as a governmental system, cannot work effectively, especially the higher the population creates to great a diversity in the population to be effective. As a social construct, adopted freely by a community of people, it works quite well, and extremely effectively to ensuring the stability, growth, and survival of a relatively small community.

Not really. If one does not try then one should not receive. Wealth comes from productivity and one should not get a share if one does not contribute to productivity at all in any fashion.
This is what concerns me. Productivity has risen over the last 20 years. These productivity gains have made the rich richer, and the middle class just sort of stuck in neutral. I understand some of this is going to "trickle down". It's just been taking its sweet time doing so.



They do mean that to some extent, however, part of the failure is that to create a new socialist man who is totally selfless. As well, the selflessness of most individuals is not their dominant characteristic. Communism fails though due to the nature of the economic problem as well as human nature.Agreed.

I think the economic problems are insurmountable compared to the problems of human nature. Capitalism and mercantisism have their problems of human nature, too, you know.

anti-trust laws are archaic, outmoded and useless. equally bad is the credence given to lawsuits over monopolistic business practices. if i make a better product, there's no reason they should be helped along BY THE GOVERNMENT in disrupting my business.

as for the EPA, patent laws, environmental laws and consumer safety standards are the only justifiable government regulation. nothing beyond that.

importantly, when i say consumer safety standards, im referring to things that actually keep people safe, not laws that allow idiot victims to sue mcdonald's for spilling hot coffee in their lap, or to sue homeowners for injuries someone sustains during a break-in.

and slavery falls under individual rights, not government regulation of business.

It also doesn't give a shit about those whom don't have the ability, nor have have been given the opportunity.

abilities can be developed. if people cant stay competitive, theres nothing good about helping them along. as for opportunities, they can be made. it's called getting a job and saving money. the overwhelming majority of lower-class people do not do this, or they wouldn't be lower class. i do not have sympathy for people who live from paycheck to paycheck, with no savings. it reflects a failure to plan which the justifiably rich do not exhibit.

abilities can be developed. if people cant stay competitive, theres nothing good about helping them along. as for opportunities, they can be made. it's called getting a job and saving money. the overwhelming majority of lower-class people do not do this, or they wouldn't be lower class. i do not have sympathy for people who live from paycheck to paycheck, with no savings. it reflects a failure to plan which the justifiably rich do not exhibit.

Most of those people live paycheck to paycheck because they have no other choice. In this day and age, to pay for shelter, food, clothing, and many other essentials causing a great drain, especially on the lower-class, whom simply do not have the resources available to gain new skills, nor to gain new opportunities. In many situations, you are given the choice of either having food and shelter, or trying to get new training so the possibility of getting a better exists. However, as food and shelter are a guarentee if you keep your low-paying job, and are necessesary for survival, they simply can not afford to advance themselves to gain the slim possiblilty that their training will gain them a better job.

Rarely it is a fairlure of plan by the individual, however a failure by one's ancestor may have existed.

The rich do not plan, as well, as they need not to to the extent of the poor. THe poor must plan everything they buy, and make many sacrifices to personal entertainment and growth, the rich have enough to buy whatever they wish, and often do.

anti-trust laws are archaic, outmoded and useless. equally bad is the credence given to lawsuits over monopolistic business practices. if i make a better product, there's no reason they should be helped along BY THE GOVERNMENT in disrupting my business.

as for the EPA, patent laws, environmental laws and consumer safety standards are the only justifiable government regulation. nothing beyond that.

importantly, when i say consumer safety standards, im referring to things that actually keep people safe, not laws that allow idiot victims to sue mcdonald's for spilling hot coffee in their lap, or to sue homeowners for injuries someone sustains during a break-in.

and slavery falls under individual rights, not government regulation of business.Sounds like tort reform, not consumer protection. What about Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, and AIG?

Monopolies are about fair opportunity, and are seldom caused because of superior products.

Except in all the cases in which this doesn't happen. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, the East India Tea Company, chlorofluorocarbons, trans-fats, the Pullman Strike, even slavery. All of these are stories where the market failed to bring about justice or health or peace.

What about the very good instances of government regulation?
1. Federal Reserve
2. FDIC
3. EPA
4. Anti-trust cases
5. Government standards (e.g. on unleaded gasoline and its transport and use.)
6. Patent and intellectual property rights
Some of those examples are positive (patent rights are essential in a market system), while others much less so (the problems with the Federal Reserve system are Legion).

It is easy to overlook that the government DOES need to play a very real role in a market-driven society. A fully-functioning capitalist society requires informed consumers. It is next to impossible for most consumers to verify that what they think they bought is what they truly meant to buy without proper labelling and the regulations that are put in place to ensure that the labelling is honest. In addition, it can be next to impossible for a consumer to know that certain ingredients are potentially harmful to their health. Government regulations thus play an essential role in a free market system: they make up for what would otherwise be a lack of information on the part of consumers, ensuring that the system works as it should.

In addition, Capitalism does require a system of law in place in order to thrive. It does little good for the system if two individuals that have every other reason to trust eachother enter a "contract" of sorts and one person screws the other over. A system of tort law has to be in place, as well as a means of law enforcement, a body to make the laws, and a body to judge whether crimes or torts have indeed occurred. From this we draw the principles of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government... all are as necessary under a well-functioning capitalism-supporting government as they are in any regular representative system.

So the existence of government itself and its necessary role in regulating certain aspects of what occurs in society are not necessarily contrary to capitalism or a free market system at all. The questions arise wherein the lines are to be drawn regarding how involved the government is allowed to be... and I'm leaving that one alone for tonight. :)

yes yes, because those of us who dislike communism are just unenlightened fools...

Darn tootin'.

First of all, you really need to learn not to express disagreement with your personal opinion as a lack of comprehension regarding a subject. It's an awful habit, friend. :)

I don't usually. This case, however, is clear-cut.

I understand Animal Farm quite fine.

The system that existed on the farm prior to the Revolution was not representative of capitalism. The book is a satire on Stalinism, as you yourself noted. The actions of the farmer and what he represents are reflective of age old Czarist system that was present in Russia prior to the Soviet Revolution, and thus certainly did not represent capitalism - it was still very much a fuedal economy.

The other farms, intended to represent the Western Allies and Germany, are clearly representations of capitalism, however. (Which is a good indication that the Manor Farm is as well, for it too is a farm where the animals do the work and the humans make the profits. The allusion to the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie is quite deliberate.) And what does Orwell point out in the end? That pig (Stalinist) and man (capitalist) are indistinguishable.

If capitalism is NOT evil, then there is no reason this comparison should be troublesome. That is to say, the conclusion of the book, the point Orwell has been building up the entire time, is ruined.

As the pigs represent the revolutionary leaders, Orwell was pointing out that they did have good reason to revolt. I'm not sure you'll find a Capitalist anywhere that will state that the Czarist system in Russia was by any means GOOD...

Yeah, except that the farms are clearly representative of capitalism.

From the Ukrainian preface to Animal Farm:

I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge carthorse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat.

:rolleyes:

Orwell's critique on the Czarist system does not translate into a critique on capitalism.

Yes, it does. To Orwell, the two are one and the same. That is why the Czarist system is depicted identically to the Western capitalist systems.

If you remember correctly, when the animals began to spread word of their revolution to other lands, it was not received so well on farms where the animals were treated well. Those lands represented Western Capitalist Republics, such as the United States. It parallels how, after the Soviets had their revolution and tried to spread it abroad, many other societies passed it off as well.

Yes... this is Orwell's cynicism coming through. He was very skeptical of the international solidarity of the proletariat, and for good reason.

At the end of the book, when the pigs are meeting with the leaders of the other farms, the point was not that they had become capitalists, but rather that they had turned into the authoritarian czarists that had ruled over them prior and were different in no way... fascists.

Nope. You are forgetting the historical allegory. The meeting at the end of the book occurs AFTER Napoleon has been double-crossed by the Hitler equivalent on one of the neighboring farms. It represents not Stalin's dealings with fascists, but Stalin's dealings with the Western Allies during World War II. (Remember also the period during which Orwell wrote the book. Just like in the book, the Western capitalist powers were, on the surface anyway, friendly with the Soviet Union. Hitler was not.)

Thus we see Stalinism's two mortal sins - collaboration with the capitalist powers (the neighboring farms, representative of the Western capitalist nations) and capitalist restoration (represented by Napoleon's restoration of the name "The Manor Farm," and the lack of distinction between pig and man.)

Fascism is distinctly different from capitalism, despite what many socialist polemics like to state.

Broadly speaking, Communist propaganda depends upon terrifying people with the (quite real) horrors of Fascism. It also involves pretending-- not in so many words, but by implication--that Fascism has nothing to do with capitalism. Fascism is just a kind of meaningless wickedness, an aberration, 'mass sadism', the sort of thing that would happen if you suddenly let loose an asylumful of homicidal maniacs. Present Fascism in this form, and you can mobilize public opinion against it, at any rate for a while, without provoking any revolutionary movement. You can oppose Fascism by bourgeois 'democracy, meaning capitalism. But meanwhile you have got to get rid of the troublesome person who points out that Fascism and bourgeois 'democracy' are Tweedledum and Tweedledee. You do it at the beginning by calling him an impracticable visionary. You tell him that he is confusing the issue, that he is splitting the anti-Fascist forces, that this is not the moment for revolutionary phrase-mongering, that for the moment we have got to fight against Fascism without inquiring too closely what we are fighting for. Later, if he still refuses to shut up, you change your tune and call him a traitor. More exactly, you call him a Trotskyist.

http://www.george-orwell.org/Spilling_The_Spanish_Beans/0.html

;)

I have no problem with small-scale communism implemented through direct democracy at local levels. People would be free to live in such communes by choice.

But to acknowledge the necessity of a communist society being run in such a manner ultimately acknowledges the fact that communism will not work on a national level, nor, by extension, a world-wide level.

Yeah, it could... a global federation of such small-scale communes.

And would communes be self-sufficient, or would they have to interact with other communes? And if they must interact for outside goods and resources, what type of structures do they set up to manage such interactions without setting up the broader-sized government we are trying to avoid?

Federations based on free association.

I understand the principles of collective ownership. But you yourself have admitted that in order to be extended to the fields you would like to see government extended and STILL be accountable, this democracy would have to be kept to a very local level.

Not necessarily. It is always best for democracy to be localized, but it can remain accountable while being centralized; it is just more difficult.

This creates a host of other problems, particularly in the relations between the various communes around the world. Relations between city-states were never "ideal", after all... look at Ancient Greece.

Look at today's Europe. Going to war every other year.

Actually, no.

The owners of the means of production in a capitalist society are those capable of getting capital from investors and, from that, able to produce value in the form of profits and goods. The people who do that tend not to be wealthy in the beginning - it takes quite a bit of skill to be successful in such endeavors.

Ah, but maybe you were talking about those venerable corporations whose logos we see on a daily basis. Who owns those? Well... they are owned by stockholders. Millions upon millions of stockholders... and admittedly, many times those stockholders are wealthier than your wildest imagination, but more often than not they are people like the guy down the street who bought a few stocks with hopes of a payoff sometime down the line when he sells them to someone else.

http://www.faireconomy.org/images/Inequality.org/Share_Stocks_Mutual_Retire.gif

Usually not. There are tons of red tape and dissenting opinions - the ability of popular pressure to get anything done is inversely proportionate to its scale...

The chief interfering force is the influence of the wealthy upon politics. I intend to get rid of the wealthy (not their lives, their wealth.)

And when you move beyond the scale that allows for democracy into the scale that requires a "representational Republic" form of government, it just gets worse since direct pressure CAN'T be applied.

Elections and lobbying are both examples of direct pressure. What are you talking about?

Class systems are unavoidable, as evidenced by reality. Attempts to avoid a class system have invariably created a super-class.

Actually, they have tended to do so only when they have accepted class systems themselves. Leninism is a perfect example of this, with its notion of a vanguard.

Better to acknowledge that, in any system, there are going to be powerful people and limit them accordingly... by keeping their ability to act through government to a minimum by keeping government itself as small as possible, and setting them against eachother in other ways through competition much like we see under capitalism...

Unfortunately the whole point of power is that people without power can murmur all they like upon what should happen, but it matters not a whit.

If you seek to restrain the powerful without getting rid of their power (which is basically what attempts to moderate capitalism amount to), you will fail. That is why state intervention in the service of the rich has been a defining feature of capitalism, and why even regulations enacted against the rich have been manipulated to their advantage.

Between pigs and human beings there was not, and there need not be, any clash of interests whatever. Their struggles and their difficulties were one. Was not the labour problem the same everywhere? Here it became apparent that Mr. Pilkington was about to spring some carefully prepared witticism on the company, but for a moment he was too overcome by amusement to be able to utter it. After much choking, during which his various chins turned purple, he managed to get it out: "If you have your lower animals to contend with," he said, "we have our lower classes!" This bon mot set the table in a roar; and Mr. Pilkington once again congratulated the pigs on the low rations, the long working hours, and the general absence of pampering which he had observed on Animal Farm.

And who is Pilkington? Frederick's rival. The rival of the farmer who invades Animal Farm, much like Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Pilkington represents the Allies.

Communists cannot agree on what "Communism" is.

Actually, we generally can... we are just very sectarian about it.

Examples of these philosophies as they have been in the past are dismissed as ultimately flawed. In addition, between the philosophies you have mentioned, there has traditionally been considerable debate between them regarding whether some groups are even really "truly Communist" or orthodox...

This is common to all radical groups. Listen to a few radically right-wing libertarians sometime.

Both present non-falsifiable points-of-view with pie-in-the-sky visions of a world-to-come that will never be because it dramatically conflicts with human nature.

What is non-falsifiable about communism?

Both have this wonderful tendency to claim that their political views would work wonderfully if they were ever implemented and have this great tendency to outright dismiss any and all examples to the contrary regarding the greatest abuses of power as "not really C....." (fill in the blanks) or "not my branch of C....."...

And in both cases, it is illegitimate to declare people guilty by association.

The other farms, intended to represent the Western Allies and Germany, are clearly representations of capitalism, however. (Which is a good indication that the Manor Farm is as well, for it too is a farm where the animals do the work and the humans make the profits. The allusion to the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie is quite deliberate.) And what does Orwell point out in the end? That pig (Stalinist) and man (capitalist) are indistinguishable.
Then perhaps my main mistake was in giving Orwell too much credit, as such is a strawman view of capitalism at best.

You cannot honestly be arguing that the social and economic structures of Russia during the time of Revolution were on par with those of the Western Allies and in Germany. Orwell certainly would not have made such a mistake. Russia was a FAR cry from a capitalist society - if you cannot distinguish the differences between an aristocratic fuedal economic system such as was present in Russia, the capitalist economic structure built in the US, and the neo-mercantilist systems present throughout Europe at the rest of the time, then this conversation is not going to go far.

There are marked differences between the economic structures in question and Orwell would have been a baffoon to try to make such a comparison - none of his potential readers would have gone for it.

The farms in Animal Farm represent societies, not just societies of a capitalist bent. Orwell was far from being fond of capitalism - he was a socialist. He did have eyes to see, however, that the fruits of the capitalist system were not as bad as those found in Czarist Russia or the Stalinist Soviet Union. This is reflected by the fact that farms with a high quality of life did not rebel - they saw no need to. The farms that did rebel most likely (if we are to judge from history) wound up much like the one in the story.

If you see the book as a condemnation of capitalism, you miss much of the point. The point is that, as desirable as it may be, you cannot overthrow the class system through violent revolution, as you are very much likely to simply create a new ruling class. Orwell was a Socialist, not a Communist - Socialists have enough realism to understand that the class system does not simply "disappear" because people have chosen to abolish it and THAT was the point of the story.


If capitalism is NOT evil, then there is no reason this comparison should be troublesome. That is to say, the conclusion of the book, the point Orwell has been building up the entire time, is ruined.
The problem is that what you are presenting is a gross oversimplification of the comparison Orwell was trying to make. The conclusion of the book, as I just stated, is that it is impossible to make the ruling class simply "disappear" with a puff of smoke and a revolution.

History itself has shown us this time and time again - all of the movements that worked to violently overthrow the class systems that ruled over them inevitably replaced them. You need only look at EVERY society which has tried to institute a Communist system, from the Soviet Union to the Warsaw Pact allies in Eastern Europe to North Korea to China to Cambodia to Vietnam to Cuba. Communists love to argue that Communism has never been tried... but such an argument ignores the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to try. It is a pipe-dream. Akin to Christian heaven. It's a goal to be worked towards and never acheived - it's the true opiate of the masses.

People HAVE tried to impliment Communism and they failed miserably, because you can't simply "eliminate" the ruling class. That was Orwell's point. Maybe you missed it, but don't miss the fact that you didn't get it on *my* lack of reading comprehension.


Yeah, except that the farms are clearly representative of capitalism.

No, the farms quite clearly represent societies - czarist Russia was not capitalist, and the Western European nations were not really capitalist either - they still had their empires and were very much neo-mercantilist.

As long as human labor must be done, a farm will ALWAYS be an apt example of society, and it is not hard to understand why Orwell used it to illustrate his story. You will also note that the type of society you are favoring is NO WHERE TO BE FOUND in the story. The Communist ideal is a FAIRYTALE, much like Christian conceptions of heaven. It is something you tell yourself you are acheiving so that it doesn't hurt too much to sacrifice your life slaving away for the pigs that you replaced for the humans.


Yes, it does. To Orwell, the two are one and the same. That is why the Czarist system is depicted identically to the Western capitalist systems.

If so, then Orwell was not as smart as I gave him credit, as there are enormous differences between a fuedalist system as found in Czarist Russia, a neo-Mercantilist system as found in Western Europe, or a Capitalist system as found in the United States back at the time.

There will ALWAYS be a ruling class. There will always be those more capable than others willing to go to greater lengths than others to acheive their ambitions of power. Eliminating class distinctions or the existing ruling class does not eliminate this - it simply creates a vacuum of power to be filled by someone else. Destroy the Czar and you might get Lenin and Trotsky, for a while... but eventually you wind up with Stalin.

And perhaps it is easy to dismiss what Stalin did as an attempt to create a State Capitalist system... the Soviet Union made great industrial strides during his rule and deserves credit for the defeat of Nazi Germany, even moreso than perhaps the Western Powers do. It is easy to judge the men of history from the comfort of an arm chair without having to deal with a hostile world, a backwards economy, and a dangerous enemy like Hitler...

I am not a fan of Stalin, but I would hesitate to question his motives as to whether he really WANTED to serve the Communist ideal, even if it wasn't perhaps possible...

Yes... this is Orwell's cynicism coming through. He was very skeptical of the international solidarity of the proletariat, and for good reason.

And wisely so. But why, as far as Communism is concerned, is the problem always with the PEOPLE and with REALITY, never with Communism itself?


Nope. You are forgetting the historical allegory. The meeting at the end of the book occurs AFTER Napoleon has been double-crossed by the Hitler equivalent on one of the neighboring farms. It represents not Stalin's dealings with fascists, but Stalin's dealings with the Western Allies during World War II. (Remember also the period during which Orwell wrote the book. Just like in the book, the Western capitalist powers were, on the surface anyway, friendly with the Soviet Union. Hitler was not.)
That's not the point I was making.

Napoleon had become as bad as the Farmer ever was, and Stalin was every bit as bad as the Czar. We don't exactly see how the humans the pigs meet with treat their animals - if we want to draw the historical comparison even further, we can say it is most likely MUCH better than Napoleon treated his animals... there is no comparison between the standard of living in Stalin's Russia and that found in Western nations at the same time.

My point, though, was that in overthrowing the Czar, Napoleon REPLACED the Czar. Destroying the ruling class outright simply creates a vacuum, which is filled by those capable of taking it. Orwell did NOT show us ANY successful revolutions on any farms... much of Orwell's point was that there ultimately CAN'T be. The violent overthrow of the ruling class, the staple of Communism (which is, by definition, revolutionary socialism), ultimately simply leads to a new ruling class that is willing to use violence as a means to govern. And history PUNCTUATES this point.

Thus we see Stalinism's two mortal sins - collaboration with the capitalist powers (the neighboring farms, representative of the Western capitalist nations) and capitalist restoration (represented by Napoleon's restoration of the name "The Manor Farm," and the lack of distinction between pig and man.)
No. You've completely missed the point of the story and have grossly oversimplified the historical problems of Stalin's regime.




Broadly speaking, Communist propaganda depends upon terrifying people with the (quite real) horrors of Fascism. It also involves pretending-- not in so many words, but by implication--that Fascism has nothing to do with capitalism. Fascism is just a kind of meaningless wickedness, an aberration, 'mass sadism', the sort of thing that would happen if you suddenly let loose an asylumful of homicidal maniacs. Present Fascism in this form, and you can mobilize public opinion against it, at any rate for a while, without provoking any revolutionary movement. You can oppose Fascism by bourgeois 'democracy, meaning capitalism. But meanwhile you have got to get rid of the troublesome person who points out that Fascism and bourgeois 'democracy' are Tweedledum and Tweedledee. You do it at the beginning by calling him an impracticable visionary. You tell him that he is confusing the issue, that he is splitting the anti-Fascist forces, that this is not the moment for revolutionary phrase-mongering, that for the moment we have got to fight against Fascism without inquiring too closely what we are fighting for. Later, if he still refuses to shut up, you change your tune and call him a traitor. More exactly, you call him a Trotskyist.

http://www.george-orwell.org/Spilling_The_Spanish_Beans/0.html
Yes, Orwell did write that.

Orwell wrote "Spilling the Spanish Beans" back in 1937, while the Spanish Civil War was still raging quite strongly. Orwell was involved in the war effort on the side of the Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification), a hardline Communist group that indeed favored the overthrow of capitalism in Spain and staunchly opposed to the Stalinists (who favored working with the Spanish bourgeois parties in the war). That he worked with them was initially by chance - his hatred of Stalinism was to come later after almost being killed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Spanish_Civil_War_and_Homage_to_Catalonia)

What Orwell wrote back in 1937, while involved in the midst of the war, is not necessarily representative of what he thought in 1945, when he wrote Animal Farm. I personally believe that witnessing firsthand what Stalin's men were like after attaining power disillusioned him in terms of what he thought Communists were accomplishing and possibly opened his eyes to see that society was not quite so bad outside of the USSR in comparison.

I'm not stating that he necessarily thought that capitalism was any less bad than before, but rather recognized that there are worse evils out there that pose as far more benign.

This is all speculation... but it is no less so than stating that Orwell believed the same in 1945, after becoming disillusioned with "Communism in practice", that he believed in 1937, before doing so.


Yeah, it could... a global federation of such small-scale communes.

That strikes me as being more or less a non-falsifiable statement...

You wouldn't know unless you tried it. And when you tried it, if it failed, its failures would inevitably be blamed on us evil bourgeois capitalists who didn't join (and yes, it would fail, for numerous other reasons that have been mentioned on this thread apart from the "scale of government" argument I've made with you). Thus we could only REALLY know if we all tried it...

Goodness. If only the rest of us had enough FAITH.


Federations based on free association.

Sure. And if by chance it fails, you'll just blame those of us that didn't join but competed against you in world marketplaces. [/quote]



Not necessarily. It is always best for democracy to be localized, but it can remain accountable while being centralized; it is just more difficult.
That very much depends. It becomes even more difficult when the government is centralized and has to administer the economy directly... this is one of the problems that has traditionally plagued societies that attempted to impliment communism.

The economic inefficiencies of the Communist system - the centralized system's inability to distribute goods on a case by case basis, the systems inability to deal with particulars regarding soil quality in certain farm regions, or mineral and ore qualities in mining regions, or the ability to provide economic incentives entice individuals of great capability into professions they might not otherwise enjoy because those professions are in high need and they can get by as easily doing less - these, on top of MANY other issues are largely responsible for the disasters that were seen in the Soviet Union and in many other countries. It was not just greed on the part of Soviet politicians or bureaucrats - they had fundamental difficulties administering the system on such a large level that it became impossible to administer on the level necessary to compete with the Western World. There are so many factors that a Capitalist Market system takes care of through prices and private ownership of production that are simply easy to overlook when one gets rid of those operations.



Look at today's Europe. Going to war every other year.

I assume you are talking about Eastern Europe - Western Europe is rather peaceful.

Eastern Europe has grave economic and political instability largely as a result of problems created by the Communism-in-practice systems (since I can't call them "Communist systems", just like I can't call countries that Christianity was part of the governing philosophy "Christian countries"...) that were able to be ignored at the time.

One sees much economic growth as well. Many idealist communists (not ALL Communists - I can tell you are intelligent so I certainly would not want to lump you into this generalization) dismiss the importance of a strong economy. Economics is the study of how to use the scarce resources of the world to fulfill near-unlimited wants. It's tricky business and we often take for granted how well the capitalist system takes care of so many variables without our even having to think of it. If a resource becomes scarce, supply goes down and thus price goes up, making it more difficult to acquire. Those that have operated most efficiently have made the profits to buy sufficient amounts of that resources, while those that have operated inefficiently risk going out of business unless they can adapt. The economic incentive is to produce as much as possible for as cheaply as possible so that as many consumers as possible will buy, ultimately maximizing profits for shareholders (not all of whom are RICH, by the way).

If you take the time to study the intricacies of the capitalist market system, you would see that it's not quite as horrible as often made out to be.


The chief interfering force is the influence of the wealthy upon politics. I intend to get rid of the wealthy (not their lives, their wealth.)
I won't hold my breath.

All I'll say is that it'd be a shame if you robbed some guy who built up a business with his bare hands from poverty to riches all because he was willing to put forward the effort to actually MAKE something of himself and his life because you're envious he made it and you didn't.

It's that type of attitude that makes some people afraid to succeed in life.


Elections and lobbying are both examples of direct pressure. What are you talking about?
Lobbying belongs to those with the money to put forth such efforts - I expected you to be the one to put forward that argument, not me.

And elections... well, yes, they work quite well - 2000 and 2004 here in the US were prime examples of that. :rolleyes:



Actually, they have tended to do so only when they have accepted class systems themselves. Leninism is a perfect example of this, with its notion of a vanguard.
Leninism failed.

It didn't work out in the end.

It got replaced with Stalin and Stalinism. My point still stands.



Unfortunately the whole point of power is that people without power can murmur all they like upon what should happen, but it matters not a whit.

If you seek to restrain the powerful without getting rid of their power (which is basically what attempts to moderate capitalism amount to), you will fail. That is why state intervention in the service of the rich has been a defining feature of capitalism, and why even regulations enacted against the rich have been manipulated to their advantage.
Ultimately, all you can do is get rid of the power of the powerful, whether it was legitimately obtained or not... their individual rights be damned.

When groups of people are willing to resort to such actions with such questionable morality, it is little wonder that totalitarianism seems to be the result.

http://www.faireconomy.org/images/Inequality.org/Share_Stocks_Mutual_Retire.gif

and even that makes it look more even than it really is

Actually, we generally can... we are just very sectarian about it.
If you are sectarian... then you don't really agree. :D

While I am sure you "agree to disagree" with fellow Communists of a different view, I assure you that historically such disagreements have come to worse ends... as sectarians tend to do.

This is common to all radical groups. Listen to a few radically right-wing libertarians sometime.
I have, and I certainly would not argue with you.

I believe much of the problem comes from radical approaches in themselves... which is my main problem with Communism. I have been VERY careful not to criticise Socialism, which I find far more agreeable on many levels.


What is non-falsifiable about communism?
I'm glad you asked.

It is non-falsifiable because it ultimately really never can be tried. The demands it makes on reality and human nature in themselves are unrealistic. As I noted, Communists sound much like Christians attempting to excuse the traditional problems that have plagued Christian society... "Oh, that was the Catholic Church, they weren't REALLY Christian," or, "Well, the Calvinists in Switzerland were more Christian than the Catholics, but they weren't *MY* branch of Christianity," or, "If only we could succeed in making our version of Christianity the Creed of the Land, you'd see! Things would be great and you'd understand the love!"

It's all nonsense. You'll never convince all the people to want to be Communist. When the system fails, the blame is inevitably placed on those that didn't feel comfortable towing the line. Never is the blame placed on the system itself... always on those who refused to sacrifice just a little bit more in the name of the mythical "greater good"... Communism and its ideals are every bit as much of a mystical fairytale as Christianity, complete with an opiate for the masses in the shape of "the ideal Communist society".

But reality doesn't operate in ideals. It's nasty, tends not to do what it's supposed to, and tends to punish us viciously when we try to put ideals in place and discount the natural order of things in themselves.

Communism is non-falsifiable because there will always be reasons it doesn't work that will never be pinned on the system itself and will always be extended to the people it claims to be helping. "Human nature is too corrupt," "Humanity is just not enlightened enough," "Content people with working economies never seem to want to have a revolution, and thus revolutions only happen in backwards nations, which make it APPEAR that Communism doesn't produce anything good!"

All nonsense. There is NOTHING that could convince the true dyed-in-the-wool Communist to accept that the problem was duly and truly in the system itself... it is dogma and the blame always lays with the stupidity of others whom just could not see and found ways to sabotage or exploit the system.

At least Capitalism takes these things into consideration. Capitalism expects the ugly side of humanity to come out at times - and to keep itself in check if it's going to continue to succeed in selling its product. It doesn't want to scare customers away into the arms of competitors, after all. Capitalism recognizes that resources are scarce... so it lets people compete for them on their own terms, rather than dictating from the desk of a bureaucrat who-gets-what. Capitalism rewards those who take the incentive to find ways to make more from less - their production goes up and suddenly their company excels over its competitors. In Capitalism, it's impossible for a single person to gain a monopoly over ALL possible resources - too many competitors seeking the same thing to ever get very far without getting stabbed in the back eventually.

Capitalism will always work better than Communism because, like reality, Capitalism is ugly... and it doesn't try to hide that fact.

The fact that you live in a capitalist society and can say how awful it is without fear of retribution is proof of that. It doesn't harm the system one bit.

But in a Communist system... such talk could disrupt the fragile economic balance that keeps all else running smoothly. We can't have THAT, now can we?

and even that makes it look more even than it really is
No one says it has to be fair... capitalists don't have to hide from the fact that life is intrinsically and unavoidably unfair. Communists, on the other hand...

Still, I have yet to see a similiar graph representing ownership of production in a traditional Communist society.

Ideally, it would look like 100% of the population owns 100% of the means of production.

In 100% of the cases where revolutionaries have attempted to apply Communism, it has instead looked more like:

0.001% owns 99.99% of the means of production.

Guess what? It didn't necessarily always turn out that way because they WANTED it to... it's often times unavoidable. It never ceases to crack me up that Communists always seem to miss that.

But hey. As long as you can blame a few corrupt bureaucrats and a few dumb, lazy, unmotivated workers... the problem COULDN'T be with the system, now could it?

And in both cases, it is illegitimate to declare people guilty by association.
My bad, forgot to address this.

You're absolutely right. Of course, I've never argued that Communists are evil people that want to commit genocide. Communists (and Christians) are human beings, to be judged on an individual basis. I've had friends in both categories. I've been Christian. I've leaned towards Communist ideas at times and am actually rather fond of certain Communist writings - Marx raises great criticisms that are worth examining and arguing over.

The abuses I see in traditionally Communist and Christian societies are not due to individual Communists or Christians themselves. Nor, as much as many would like to believe, do they arise from "bad leadership", as it has been too commonplace in both instances. No, I blame the ideologies themselves and the dogmatic stances behind them.

I very firmly believe that taking these ideologies and trying to adapt societies to them inevitably leads to the abuses we universally see in both circumstances, because both ideologies lack a firm understanding of the ways in which reality and society work. Furthermore, both have always had the tendency to pass their problems off on the individuals involved - never taking a step back to question whether there is a more fundamental problem at the root of it all.

Communists and Christians can be great people, with great ideals, and with wonderful capacity to do great things in the world around them. Both systems are flawed, however, and both systems, when applied to a social level, tend to break down and cause widespread abuse.

On this note, I have to hit the sack for the night - it's midnight here, past my bedtime.

Soheran - I very much enjoyed the debate, as I found you cordial, intelligent, and full of good points - qualities I always look for in people with whom I have discussions, much as we may agree to disagree in the end. :)

Goodnight!

Ultimately, all you can do is get rid of the power of the powerful, whether it was legitimately obtained or not... their individual rights be damned.


And that's why communism is immoral. That last sentence. You are discredited. Those rights are inalienable, and it is disgusting that you think that the culmination of their exercise, wealth, represents evil and ought to be destroyed. It is beneath contempt.

As for illegitimately derived power, their individual rights are forfeit if they abuse that power or obtain it through treachery or unjustifiable violence. But not by being rich. That's legitimately derived, as capitalism DOES depend on a government being in place.

You cannot honestly be arguing that the social and economic structures of Russia during the time of Revolution were on par with those of the Western Allies and in Germany.

I don't believe I said that.

The farms in Animal Farm represent societies, not just societies of a capitalist bent.

Go ahead, continue to dodge the point as you will. I think I have offered sufficient support for my argument as it stands.

If you see the book as a condemnation of capitalism, you miss much of the point.

The book is not a condemnation of capitalism. The book is a condemnation of Stalinism. Throughout, however, the book PRESUPPOSES the evil of capitalism. This is built into the metaphors it employs.

That is why I call it a leftist, indeed ardently socialist, polemic against Stalinism.

The point is that, as desirable as it may be, you cannot overthrow the class system through violent revolution, as you are very much likely to simply create a new ruling class.

I don't see that. The connection between the Rebellion and the power seizure of Napoleon is too weak for it. I don't know if there's a prescriptive point to Animal Farm at all, beyond "don't trust the government"; his main interest is simply in attacking Stalinism.

(Actually, if we want to go into the book's relevance to the disputes in socialist revolutionary theory, the point that leaps out more than any advocacy of reformism is the attack on vanguardism - but it's not clear to me that this was intentional.)

The problem is that what you are presenting is a gross oversimplification of the comparison Orwell was trying to make. The conclusion of the book, as I just stated, is that it is impossible to make the ruling class simply "disappear" with a puff of smoke and a revolution.

Again, I don't see that. How exactly does the book illustrate this point?

History itself has shown us this time and time again - all of the movements that worked to violently overthrow the class systems that ruled over them inevitably replaced them. You need only look at EVERY society which has tried to institute a Communist system, from the Soviet Union to the Warsaw Pact allies in Eastern Europe to North Korea to China to Cambodia to Vietnam to Cuba. Communists love to argue that Communism has never been tried... but such an argument ignores the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to try. It is a pipe-dream.

Do you often contradict yourself in one paragraph? Make a choice. Either communism has been tried, or it hasn't.

And the whole idea of "impossible to try" is incoherent anyway, because trying to try amounts to trying, and if there is no attempt at trying, how can we judge it impossible?

People HAVE tried to impliment Communism

Again. Really, make up your mind.

and they failed miserably, because you can't simply "eliminate" the ruling class. That was Orwell's point.

I don't know; Jones never did return, after all.

Maybe you missed it

I must have, but even if I am wrong, my error pales in comparison to the notion that Animal Farm is not suffused with opposition to capitalism.

No, the farms quite clearly represent societies - czarist Russia was not capitalist, and the Western European nations were not really capitalist either - they still had their empires and were very much neo-mercantilist.

It matters little, because Orwell certainly thought that the Western European nations were capitalist.

As long as human labor must be done, a farm will ALWAYS be an apt example of society,

A farm, perhaps. A farm where some work and others profit, not really (or, at least, not necessarily).

You will also note that the type of society you are favoring is NO WHERE TO BE FOUND in the story.

Yes... because Animal Farm is a historical allegory that deals with Stalinist Russia. There is no place for such a society.

That said - read Homage to Catalonia.

If so, then Orwell was not as smart as I gave him credit, as there are enormous differences between a fuedalist system as found in Czarist Russia, a neo-Mercantilist system as found in Western Europe, or a Capitalist system as found in the United States back at the time.

Mercantilism is opposed to a free market, not to capitalism. Capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production.

State intervention always has and always will accompany capitalism.

There will ALWAYS be a ruling class. There will always be those more capable than others willing to go to greater lengths than others to acheive their ambitions of power.

So? If there are no positions of power, there's not much they can do.

Eliminating class distinctions or the existing ruling class does not eliminate this - it simply creates a vacuum of power to be filled by someone else.

If we eliminate class distinctions, there is no "vacuum."

The vacuum occurs when we overthrow the ruling class without destroying the class system.

Destroy the Czar and you might get Lenin and Trotsky, for a while... but eventually you wind up with Stalin.

Because you got Lenin and Trotsky. They are not the only options.

And perhaps it is easy to dismiss what Stalin did as an attempt to create a State Capitalist system... the Soviet Union made great industrial strides during his rule and deserves credit for the defeat of Nazi Germany, even moreso than perhaps the Western Powers do. It is easy to judge the men of history from the comfort of an arm chair without having to deal with a hostile world, a backwards economy, and a dangerous enemy like Hitler...

I am not a fan of Stalin, but I would hesitate to question his motives as to whether he really WANTED to serve the Communist ideal, even if it wasn't perhaps possible...

Regardless, the fact remains that he did not actually implement the policies I propose.

Thus, in criticizing said policies, to bring up Stalin is just a straw man.

And wisely so.

That's what I said.

But why, as far as Communism is concerned, is the problem always with the PEOPLE and with REALITY, never with Communism itself?

The problem is neither with the people nor with reality. What are you talking about?

Orwell did NOT show us ANY successful revolutions on any farms...

Yeah... because there WEREN'T ANY in the 1930s.

This is all speculation... but it is no less so than stating that Orwell believed the same in 1945, after becoming disillusioned with "Communism in practice", that he believed in 1937, before doing so.

Before? "Spilling the Spanish Beans" is full of distaste for Stalinism. And the quote regarded fascism, not Stalinism.

That's more or less a non-falsifiable statement... usually the venue of Christians trying to foist Intellectual Design on the rest of us.

No, it isn't. You asked me how I would extend it to a global level. I told you. Now you can go in any number of directions. You can explain theoretically why it wouldn't work, you can advance an empirical argument based on similar attempts, and so on.

You wouldn't know unless you tried it.

True... you cannot achieve certainty without experience. But this is true for everything.

And when you tried it, if it failed, its failures would inevitably be blamed on us evil bourgeois capitalists who didn't join

Actually, not really. I see no reason why communism can't coexist peacefully with capitalism... under the condition that the capitalist countries actually permit such a situation, which, judging by history, they would not.

So, yes - if the evil bourgeois capitalists launch an invasion, or start hiring terrorist death squads, and so on, they might bear some, most, or all of the blame.

That very much depends. It becomes even more difficult when the government is centralized and has to administer the economy directly... this is one of the problems that has traditionally plagued societies that attempted to impliment communism.

If present centralized economic structures are to be maintained, the best option is probably a compromise between market exchange among publically-owned corporations and more traditional planning.

Of course, I support abolishing such structures. I think they are incompatible with a free society.

(If you will permit me to whine for a moment, that is one of the problems with arguing with you people... not any stubbornness or lack of reason on your part, nor any inability to respond on mine, but simply that my position is extremely difficult to defend if its elements are isolated. I am a fairly recent convert to the radical variety of communism I have been advocating here; for a long time my preference was some variety of socialism operating with at least some market mechanisms, and without full economic equality.

Basically, my position is that radical economic equality in the context of a communist economic system is good IF it is accompanied by certain very important changes in the way we live, and without those changes, its benefits will not manifest themselves and its costs will be far more severe.)

The economic inefficiencies of the Communist system - the centralized system's inability to distribute goods on a case by case basis, the systems inability to deal with particulars regarding soil quality in certain farm regions, or mineral and ore qualities in mining regions, or the ability to provide economic incentives entice individuals of great capability into professions they might not otherwise enjoy because those professions are in high need and they can get by as easily doing less - these, on top of MANY other issues are largely responsible for the disasters that were seen in the Soviet Union and in many other countries. It was not just greed on the part of Soviet politicians or bureaucrats - they had fundamental difficulties administering the system on such a large level that it became impossible to administer on the level necessary to compete with the Western World. There are so many factors that a Capitalist Market system takes care of through prices and private ownership of production that are simply easy to overlook when one gets rid of those operations.

This is a giant straw man.

I assume you are talking about Eastern Europe - Western Europe is rather peaceful.

No, I was being sarcastic.

You referred to Ancient Greece. I responded by pointing out that we have proof that more or less autonomous entities (nation-states) can cooperate peacefully, especially when cooperation is mutually beneficial and power differentials are not severe.

One sees much economic growth as well. Many idealist communists (not ALL Communists - I can tell you are intelligent so I certainly would not want to lump you into this generalization) dismiss the importance of a strong economy.

Actually, most idealist communists see a strong economy as a prerequisite and even a consequence of communism. I am not an idealist communist; I do indeed dismiss the importance of a strong economy.

Economics is the study of how to use the scarce resources of the world to fulfill near-unlimited wants.

I am not interested in that. I am interested in granting human beings satisfaction in ways that will ensure that they do not have near-unlimited wants for scarce resources. That particular tendency seems purely cultural.

If you take the time to study the intricacies of the capitalist market system, you would see that it's not quite as horrible as often made out to be.

It's rather good at maximizing productivity, but I'm not particularly interested in that. Human beings survived and prospered at far lower levels of productivity than we possess today.

I want to meet basic human needs and ensure human freedom. Frankly, the rest can burn.

I won't hold my breath.

Oh, you shouldn't. I'm quite aware that my proposals are not going to be implemented anytime soon - or ever, quite possibly.

All I'll say is that it'd be a shame if you robbed some guy who built up a business with his bare hands from poverty to riches all because he was willing to put forward the effort to actually MAKE something of himself and his life because you're envious he made it and you didn't.

We agree.

Lobbying belongs to those with the money to put forth such efforts - I expected you to be the one to put forward that argument, not me.

Indeed, but we have supposed a democratic communist society - if lobbying is based on wealth, then it would be more or less representative of the public.

And elections... well, yes, they work quite well - 2000 and 2004 here in the US were prime examples of that. :rolleyes:

Non-elections tend to work a whole lot worse.

Leninism failed.

It didn't work out in the end.

It got replaced with Stalin and Stalinism. My point still stands.

You missed my point. I am not a Leninist; I am arguing that by using a class structure in implementing socialism (an attitude indicated by, among other things, Leninist vanguardism), Leninism did not really abolish the class system as it should have, and as you said it attempted to do.

Ultimately, all you can do is get rid of the power of the powerful, whether it was legitimately obtained or not... their individual rights be damned.

No one has the right to power over others.

And that's why communism is immoral. That last sentence. You are discredited. Those rights are inalienable, and it is disgusting that you think that the culmination of their exercise, wealth, represents evil and ought to be destroyed. It is beneath contempt.

I didn't write the bit you quoted. My opponent did, in trying to demonstrate the wrongness of my position. Read more carefully next time.

Soheran - I very much enjoyed the debate, as I found you cordial, intelligent, and full of good points - qualities I always look for in people with whom I have discussions, much as we may agree to disagree in the end.

Thanks... I enjoyed it too, for pretty similar reasons.

(And I don't actually think I was very cordial - I think I was pretty mean, actually, which has gotten to be a bad habit of mine in these past few weeks on these forums. I apologize for that.)

Um, no, I just don't consider the third world reflective of capitalism as the third world had economic issues not caused by capitalism and many of them for long periods of time never practiced capitalism. So, in order to best view things it is necessary to exclude them from analysis, although, if we include them then we can note that nations that trade and practice some level of capitalism are better than the ones that don't or that practice it badly. Their standards of living improve through free trade and other measures though as free trade allows them to trade their services for money that fuels economic growth.
Oh, the 4th world really refers to indigenous populations that don't decide to join the mainstream or to the poorest of poor nations.


1/5th? No, 1/5th of Belgium has High-speed internet which, hell, I don't even have high-speed internet. The number of internet users in Belgium ends up being close to half, and that does not take into account the fact that in many areas libraries can be used for internet access. As well, the percent with internet is rapidly increasing.

The literacy in the US is 99.9% not 95%.

The 4th world does not always have the chance to go to school, they don't 'not decide to join the mainstream' they're born in poverty, raised in poverty, and will probably die in poverty in a rich country.

And yes only 1/5 of all the people in Belgium has internet acces, whether it's high speed or not.
I don't know from where you get these informations, but they're clearly wrong.
Yes in some libraries you can get on the internet, but again it's not free, it costs a lot, I tried it once.

And apparantly the literacy in the US is about 75-80%.

Issues not caused by capitalism?
How about colonies? The people had to work 'till they died, just so that the colonists could get more profit.

It's not true that when countries open trade borders that they get a better economy, only a part gets a better one, others get worse.
Some who keep there trade borders closed even get a better economy.

The 4th world does not always have the chance to go to school, they don't 'not decide to join the mainstream' they're born in poverty, raised in poverty, and will probably die in poverty in a rich country.


That was the case with the 1st world a couple centuries ago as well. It was the industrial revolution and mass production thats led to the huge advances we enjoy today. Why not allow the poorer nations to help themselves just as we did.



And apparantly the literacy in the US is about 75-80%.


Nope. Its 99.99%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
And hey they get to do it while still retaining more economic liberty than any of those other countries at joint 1st.


Issues not caused by capitalism?
How about colonies? The people had to work 'till they died, just so that the colonists could get more profit.


Please find a capitalist who supports large statism and imperialism. We're mostly isolationist.


It's not true that when countries open trade borders that they get a better economy, only a part gets a better one, others get worse.
Some who keep there trade borders closed even get a better economy.

Not in the long term. Consumers will always benefit from world wide competition and free and open markets.

Please find a capitalist who supports large statism and imperialism. We're mostly isolationist.

Capitalism does depend on expanding and creating new markets, and using military force to open those markets has certainly been a common option. I'm thinking of the Phillipines, Cuba, Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, even Iraq.

Communism is good in theroy but it hasn't been so in practice.

I disagree with that actually.

It gives people no meaning or ambition, and gives them no ecenomic freedom.

Nope. Its 99.99%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
And hey they get to do it while still retaining more economic liberty than any of those other countries at joint 1st.


Those figures are absurd. The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/index.asp?file=KeyFindings/Demographics/Overall.asp&PageId=16)estimates that there are 30 million American adults that have below basic literacy skills, meaning they can perform "no more than the most simple and concrete literacy skills." While that might count as literate at a most basic level, I think that we'd all agree that sort of literacy is not adequate.

There are also another 63 million adults operating at a basic level, which is a huge range. The bottom half of that 63 million adults can read a book to their children, but would not be able to understand something more complicated, such as the language of a lease agreement or the instruction manual for a complicated piece of technology.

There is a huge difference between basic literacy and functional literacy in today's society. I am most familiar with the Canadian example, as I work in the Canadian educational system. I know that our official figures are 99.9% literacy, but our functional literacy levels are closer to 80%.

It...gives them no ecenomic freedom.

actually, its gives a non-contradictory kind of economic freedom. if economic freedom actually means something, then capitalism does not posses it.

Human beings are too steeped in concepts of personal property and self-aggrandizement to ever successfully implement a true communist society on a large scale. If Man was evolved from social insects rather than primates, that would be the only way we'd ever achieve a fully functioning communist state in more than just name only.

After all, social insects have no concept of personal property or self-aggrandizement and they often work as individual cells of a singular entity. Think about it. Ants, bees and wasps and such? Communists.

Human beings are too steeped in concepts of personal property and self-aggrandizement to ever successfully implement a true communist society on a large scale. If Man was evolved from social insects rather than primates, that would be the only way we'd ever achieve a fully functioning communist state in more than just name only.

After all, social insects have no concept of personal property or self-aggrandizement and they often work as individual cells of a singular entity. Think about it. Ants, bees and wasps and such? Communists.

Whoever said communism was anthetical to personal possessions? Oh, that's right, no one did! Stop with the "absolute equality" straw man argument. No one on the left wants everyone to be identical or all individuality to be erased.

Human civiliation started without a concept of "private property." All of the earliest human social groups were communal in nature, a sort of "primitive communism", if you will.

After all, social insects have no concept of personal property or self-aggrandizement and they often work as individual cells of a singular entity. Think about it. Ants, bees and wasps and such? Communists.


Communism isn't collectivism nor peasant/agrarian communalism, communal villages have existed for centuries in many agrarian communities (and still today!).


Marx was actually the first person to argue against collectivism - as in everyone doing social labor and getting equal wages. This idea was originally Proudhoun's, one of the major social anarchist thinkers, who attempted to take "the best" of capitalism with anarchism. In Marx's "Poverty of Philosophy", he pretty much destroys collectivist ideology, declaring that communism can only be achieved through the "abolition of the wage system".

Communism is essentially a gift economy, where the division of labor has been abolished along with property relations. As Marx cited:

"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
-The Communist Manifesto


"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
-The German Ideology


Basically, "Each according to his ability, each according to his needs!".

Communism isn't collectivism nor peasant/agrarian communalism, communal villages have existed for centuries in many agrarian communities (and still today!).


Marx was actually the first person to argue against collectivism - as in everyone doing social labor and getting equal wages. This idea was originally Proudhoun's, one of the major social anarchist thinkers, who attempted to take "the best" of capitalism with anarchism. In Marx's "Poverty of Philosophy", he pretty much destroys collectivist ideology, declaring that communism can only be achieved through the "abolition of the wage system".

Communism seeks to find a balance between individualism and collectivism. One cannot be fullfilled without the other. I don't think that "communism" can be approached without a lengthy solidarity building period in a socialist setting.

Communism seeks to find a balance between individualism and collectivism. One cannot be fullfilled without the other. I don't think that "communism" can be approached without a lengthy solidarity building period in a socialist setting.

Depends how you look at it. Anarchists advocate immediate transition to communism. Leninists tend to think there is a period of "building socialism" notably through state capitalist-esque policies. Left Communists tend to lean slightly more towards immediate revolution, but still recognize the need of a transitional stage.


I think it really depends on the situation. It is obvious that an industrialized first world nation won't need to take as long as 1917 Russia in transitioning into communism, but I think there would still a need for a socialist state to suppress counter-revolution and exist till reactionary and alienatory tenancies and attitudes diminish. I do think the Bolsheviks took the right approach in Russia, the NEP was the best Lenin could do.

That was the case with the 1st world a couple centuries ago as well. It was the industrial revolution and mass production thats led to the huge advances we enjoy today. Why not allow the poorer nations to help themselves just as we did.




Nope. Its 99.99%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
And hey they get to do it while still retaining more economic liberty than any of those other countries at joint 1st.



Please find a capitalist who supports large statism and imperialism. We're mostly isolationist.



Not in the long term. Consumers will always benefit from world wide competition and free and open markets.

You know how it comes we're richer?
Because we STOLE recources from Africa, Latin-America, Asia, and mayber some other parts of the world.
From who can the poorer nations steal now?


Since when is wikipedia a valuable source?
If I want to I just write that only one per cent of all amercans can read and write, and it'll appear there.
Would you accept that too?

I don't know any real capitalist, so it'll be quite hard for me to finds one, and to be able to talk to him.

Competition is what makes us work longer for less money.
In 1964 Jean Fourastié (a frenchman, economist) once wrote that we only have to work for 40 000 hours in our live (starting in 2000).
It might seem a lot, but I roughly calculated it and it came out that we could go on our pension when we were 50-55, which is 10-15 years earlier then now.

Why does everybody hate Communism?

Cause it keeps on killing people. Lots of 'em.

It's not bad. It's good!

Oh, well, when you put it like that....

People work and can get whatever they want from the store. Nobody is poor and nobody is rich.

You know there has not been a single deliberately established communism in the history of the world that has ever worked out like that?

They just become a thin veneer for another senselessly oppressive police state that butchers its own citizens for no good reason.

Communism is good in theroy but it hasn't been so in practice.

Another sophistry. Its consistent failures in practice should suggest its failures as a theory.

I don't think you lazy westerners lounging about in your bedroom at noon on a Saturday appreciate the economic conditions that keep you from living like almost everyone else in the world -- slaving in back-breaking conditions 18 hours a day for a single bowl of rice. Maybe if you weren't all so fat and complacent you wouldn't think this intellectually bankrupt movement of dumpy old hippies that have never traveled more than 50 miles from home has any credit, and you'd quit taking your quality of life for granted.

Over time, money will be completely forgotten. People would work just because they enjoy work. Farmers would give other people their fruits and electricians would give other people televisions...

What's so bad about that?

(A) It never works.

(B) You seem to vastly overestimate the amount of wealth in the world.

exactly...

Only in 500 or so years, people will be more evolved and will understand it, and hopefully implement it!

You guys are pathetic... clinging to the delusions of a century-dead madman while the world moves on around you.

If you want to see a socioeconomic system that encourages income equality and other social goods without totally destroying the society that practices it, bankrupting them, or permitting the growth of mass graves, read up on Japan's (http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue23/Locke23.htm).

the free market system as it is now, is also imperfect, it cannot continue as it indefinitely.....it replies on constant growth to succeed and infinite growth is impossible

Untrue. It doesn't rely on anything except the free exchange of capital.

This is just one of the intellectually dishonest sophistries hawked by communists to make it seem like communism is inevitable and that we should all just lay down arms and accept it now.

I think it was never tried in more advanced contries because people who live relatively well don't have a need for a communist revolution since they won't gain from it. Why would someone who owns a house and has a good income in an advanced country revolt?

That's pretty much spot-on. Communists vastly overrepresent the degree to which people are willing to revolt because of class. Most people don't like to fight; as South America has shown us, most will emigrate before fighting.

Of course they also vastly overrepresent the degree to which westerners are poor. The vast majority are exceedingly rich by the standards of the world.

And if I could clean toilets and get paid the same as a doctor, why should I want to take the effort to be a doctor? Or an engineer? Or a scientist? Or an electrician?

And even with the promise of vast wealth we have trouble enough motivating people to become doctors! Yeesh. I'd hate to think about how few would do it if all they had was the promise of stale bread and not being shot by the government.

In 1964 Jean Fourastié (a frenchman, economist) once wrote that we only have to work for 40 000 hours in our live (starting in 2000).
It might seem a lot, but I roughly calculated it and it came out that we could go on our pension when we were 50-55, which is 10-15 years earlier then now.
You forget however that in 1964 birth rates were higher and life expentancy lower. Once you factor these changes in his equation, you'll probably find out his numbers changed upwards. By 10-15 years. ;)

You forget however that in 1964 birth rates were higher and life expentancy lower. Once you factor these changes in his equation, you'll probably find out his numbers changed upwards. By 10-15 years. ;)

Well maybe you forgot to read that he said we had to work 40 000 hours in 2000.
So he must've putten in his equation that life expectancy would be higher in 2000, because it has rissen already in the 20th century.
Higher birth rates in 1964? Well that makes our work period even shorter in 2000, because the ones wo were born in the sixties are now adults, mostly with jobs!

You know there has not been a single deliberately established communism in the history of the world that has ever worked out like that?

They just become a thin veneer for another senselessly oppressive police state that butchers its own citizens for no good reason.

As practiced in the past, its just a veneer. The Soviet Union was no more communist or socialist than it was a duck. Soviet style bureaucratic collectivism is nothing more than a convenient way to discredit the left. The real winner of the Russian Revolution was the right wing.

Another sophistry. Its consistent failures in practice should suggest its failures as a theory.

I don't think you lazy westerners lounging about in your bedroom at noon on a Saturday appreciate the economic conditions that keep you from living like almost everyone else in the world -- slaving in back-breaking conditions 18 hours a day for a single bowl of rice. Maybe if you weren't all so fat and complacent you wouldn't think this intellectually bankrupt movement of dumpy old hippies that have never traveled more than 50 miles from home has any credit, and you'd quit taking your quality of life for granted.

We oppose poverty on principle, wherever and whenever we find it. Saying that a working class person in the west is so much better off than his third world counterpart and therefore shouldn't complain is nothing more than a deflection, and a convenient way to deflate any change. You don't seem to know how hard most people work for the paltry wage they get, only to see it disappear with nothing left over.

(A) It never works.

(B) You seem to vastly overestimate the amount of wealth in the world.

A) It's never worked in practice because it keeps being crushed by military dictatorships or co-opted by Leninist bastards.

B) I'd say he's vastly underestimating the amount of wealth in the world.

You guys are pathetic... clinging to the delusions of a century-dead madman while the world moves on around you.

If you want to see a socioeconomic system that encourages income equality and other social goods without totally destroying the society that practices it, bankrupting them, or permitting the growth of mass graves, read up on Japan's (http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue23/Locke23.htm).

You seem to think that all socialists are marxists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Japanese workers are no better off than their American or European counterparts.

Untrue. It doesn't rely on anything except the free exchange of capital.

This is just one of the intellectually dishonest sophistries hawked by communists to make it seem like communism is inevitable and that we should all just lay down arms and accept it now.

The endless search for profit requires economic growth. Nothing is more fundamental to capitalism than the search for profit. The conclusion is not that communism is inevitable, the conclusion is that human survival and capitalism are mutually exclusive in the long run.

That's pretty much spot-on. Communists vastly overrepresent the degree to which people are willing to revolt because of class. Most people don't like to fight; as South America has shown us, most will emigrate before fighting.

Of course they also vastly overrepresent the degree to which westerners are poor. The vast majority are exceedingly rich by the standards of the world.

But they are still poor in the society that they live in. And though they may have a higher standard of living, they are by no means rich by third world standards. Most are awash in a sea of debt, and will never move out of the income group they were born in, regardless of how much hard work they put out.

Flight before fight only proves that people are rational. If flight appears safer or more lucrative then years of strikes and protest, most people will take.

And even with the promise of vast wealth we have trouble enough motivating people to become doctors! Yeesh. I'd hate to think about how few would do it if all they had was the promise of stale bread and not being shot by the government.

Motivation is not the problem. Having the means to become a professional is more troubling. Many people who want to become doctors don't have the means to go through that much education, even though they would be perfectly qualified to do so.

Once again, no one on the left wants absolute equality. They want economic democracy.

As practiced in the past, its just a veneer. The Soviet Union was no more communist or socialist than it was a duck. Soviet style bureaucratic collectivism is nothing more than a convenient way to discredit the left. The real winner of the Russian Revolution was the right wing.


Not a true scotsman...

Not a true scotsman...

When the whole purpose of socialism is to allow worker's to control the means of production and to create a level of equality that prevents abuses of authority, how does a state owned economy under a totalitarian party dictatorship fit under the definition of socialism?

Well maybe you forgot to read that he said we had to work 40 000 hours in 2000.
So he must've putten in his equation that life expectancy would be higher in 2000, because it has rissen already in the 20th century.
Higher birth rates in 1964? Well that makes our work period even shorter in 2000, because the ones wo were born in the sixties are now adults, mostly with jobs!
The only conclusion I can draw from your post is that you don't know whether he included a higher life expectancy or not. As for the lower birth rates, they mean less productive citizens to support a retired person. The baby boomers will start to retire very very soon (1945+60=2005).

And let's presume for a moment he calculated everything correctly. But did he take into account the increase in the standard of living? I doubt it. So, maybe you could retire at 50. But for only half the pension you'd normally get.

Delayed edit (forum moving vvveeerrryyy slowly): Did he also include in his calculations unemplyment benefits for 10% of France's population?

No[] true scotsman...

...is born in paris to african immigrants and never even saw scotland except for a postcard once.

yeah, that's about the state of things.

The real winner of the Russian Revolution was the right wing.
Those lucky Russian factory owners. How they managed to win the Russian revolution!



























As zombies, of course, since they had already been killed.

Those lucky Russian factory owners. How they managed to win the Russian revolution!

As zombies, of course, since they had already been killed.

I'm talking about in the West. There is no better propaganda then pointing to Soviet atrocities to deflate left wing causes.

I'm talking about in the West. There is no better propaganda then pointing to Soviet atrocities to deflate left wing causes.
Idealist no. 1: "People, believe me, we can fly by flapping our arms. We just have to try hard enough!" Jumps off the top of a hill and crashes into a bloody pulp.

Idealist no. 2: "Hey, guys, the first one didn't do it right, who wants to be the next to try?"

Voice from the crowd: "Fuck off, moron!"

;)

When the whole purpose of socialism is to allow worker's to control the means of production and to create a level of equality that prevents abuses of authority, how does a state owned economy under a totalitarian party dictatorship fit under the definition of socialism?
This is the problem I have with Communism, really.

As you noticed, I have argued against the system. Unlike many detractors, I am fully aware of the fact that the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the host of other countries that have called themselves "Communist" most certainly do not reflect the ideals proposed by Communism and thus perhaps are not fairly called "fair representations of Communism".

I get that.

I do think that there is a lesson to be learned, though. My argument has always been that the Communist vision of the world does not fit well with the complexities of reality, and that the atrocities that have occurred in so-called "Communist" countries (they were not Communist - they did not fit the Communist ideal by any means) were not the result of some wanting to create a new ruling class, but rather was the result of the fact that the Communist ideology was not capable of dealing with the complexities of reality in the societies which it was attempted to be implimented.

Communist societies were the attempts of some to impliment Communist systems. They FAILED. Yes, they ended up as what you call "State Capitalist" rather than "Communist"... I have NEVER seen a decent argument to show that it isn't unavoidable. The best I have seen, as Soheran did, are attempts to point out how it MIGHT work - ideas that are more or less hypothetical but lacking concrete evidence taken from historical examples.

Do you really think that none of those that ended up creating "State Capitalist" systems (as you call them - they are about as Capitalist as they are Communist) had good intentions? That they didn't try to model their systems after successful small-level operations like the the communes? How many of you have stopped to think about the possibility that they TRIED to impliment the form of Communism you advocate and just couldn't do it because it fundamentally conflicts with the natural order of reality?

I have never stated that I believe the ideals found in Capitalism are somehow better than the ideals found in Communism. Would it be wonderful if everyone could just "work together", do what they love, and live by the principle of "From each according to his ability, from each according to his need,"?

Sure. It would be wonderful. It would be wonderful if we could abolish power structures and the monopolization of the means of production in the hands of a few. But... it would also be wonderful if there was a Santa Claus and a tooth fairy, and magical wands that cure awful diseases by simply waving them over people, and if there was the ability to fly just by running and jumping off a cliff and wishing it so. Unfortunately, wishing and good intentions do not make a thing "viable" in terms of reality. One can wish there is a God and a heaven after they die all they want... it doesn't necessarily make it so.

And yes, I extend the same criticism to Communism. Granting that the so-called "Communist States" (yes, I'm very much aware of the fact that such is an oxymoron, but bear with me) of the world were not "Communist" per se... it very much says something that so many people advocate a system that has never been successfully implimented and that attempts to do so have devolved into quite to opposite of their ideals. As is often said to those who assert the existence of God, I do believe that the burden of proof is on you Communists to PROVE it can be successfully implimented apart from "what-ifs"... because, as an observer of history, I can say that, from what I see, every time it has been tried it has failed to live up to its wonderful standards.

Communism and the successful abolition of a class system is thus an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof is on you to explain and show how it could work, both in theory and in practice. I stand by my claim that it's a non-falsifiable hypothesis - every time it is tried and inevitably fails, there are a plethora of excuses as to why it could not have worked in that particular situation, with nary an eye turned towards the possibility that it is a flawed ideal, much like the ideal young girls hold when they want to be like supermodels.

The value of Communism is not the ideal it promotes, but rather in the flaws it points out in Capitalism which need to be taken to heart and which OUGHT to be addressed. There are major flaws in Capitalism. There are better possible systems, I am sure... and perhaps better ideas out there. But Capitalism has an edge over Communism in that it has shown itself able to be implemented in reality in some accordance with the ideals it advocates. It is much like Darwin's Theory of Evolution - the Theory of Evolution is far from perfect, but it is the best explanation we have at this particular moment vis-a-vis the development of life. It is something to be tweaked as we go along and new evidence arises, not something to be chucked out the window wholesale because we either dislike what it means or because we can see visible flaws here and there.

Capitalism is not an economic ideology (which Communism is) - it's an economic theory based on ideas of how society would be better run than societies that embrace mercantilist or fuedal ideas. Mercantilism developed out of fuedalism and Capitalism developed out of Mercantilism - it is a refinement of principles.

Why does everybody hate Communism? It's not bad. It's good! People work and can get whatever they want from the store. Nobody is poor and nobody is rich.

Why is everybody so anti-communist???:mad:

Are you serious?:eek: :headbang: Have you ever read anything about 20th century history?Dont you know what the communists did?Communists massacred literally more than 150 million innocent people worldwide total in their goal to remake the world.Mao killed over 100 million in various way,including simply cutting off food to a province that had nationalist elements in it.Stalin killed about 40 million,setting up Siberian gulags and starving Ukraine.not counting the 20 million taht died in WW2.Milllions more were killed in Africa and Asia.Pol Pot killed another few million Camobodians.There still finding mass graves with bones sticking out of the ground containing thousands of people.North Korea has lots of starved people as well.Every communist state ever created had a death toll.This kind of thinking is inexucusable.Its like saying that the Nazis werent all that bad.In fairness,compared to the Commies,they killed only 7 million,a tiny fraction of what the Communists had done.

When the whole purpose of socialism is to allow worker's to control the means of production and to create a level of equality that prevents abuses of authority, how does a state owned economy under a totalitarian party dictatorship fit under the definition of socialism?

Becuse socialism is inherently impossible.You cant have a power structure set up wiht the kind of enormous power that a socialist state is inevitbly granted without having a totalitarian dictatorshiip.

Excuse me? I live in a Canada, we are a VERY SUCCESSFUL SOCIALISM. You see, Communism has failed because they tried to do it all at once. We up north are smart enough to do it gradually over a period of a few hundred years. By the way, we're a constitutional monarche, not a totaltarian dictatorship!

Whoever said communism was anthetical to personal possessions? Oh, that's right, no one did! Stop with the "absolute equality" straw man argument. No one on the left wants everyone to be identical or all individuality to be erased.

Human civiliation started without a concept of "private property." All of the earliest human social groups were communal in nature, a sort of "primitive communism", if you will.

Yes,but then society moved on.Socialism only works in small groups,such as a band of primitive hunter-gatherers working together to supply each other with food.Socialism can only function in a socity where all individuals are closely connected to each other and know each other personally.As human population grew,this primitive society was inevitably replaced by one featuring money.Capitalism evolved as a system by witch millions of people,knowing nothing of each others needs or objectives,pursuing his or her own self interest,inadvertantly coordinates there efforts so as everyone is supplied with there needs.Have you ever stopped to ponder how it is that society functions,when it seems that everyone is doing exactly what is they would like to do?Capitalism is a impersonal,benovolent,omnipotent means to manage the efforts of millions of people.This is the reason why all socialist societies fail in terms of producing as much as a capitalist society.In a group of a dozen or so individuals,it works to have a group leader who is aware of his friends needs and capabilities and can assign one to go pick fruits from trees,and another to fish.In a massive society of(to use my own USA as a example)300+ million individuals,no person,or even large bureacracy of managing boards,politburos, and commitees,could ever know enough about the people below them to effectively manage them.It is better in a capitalist society,where a manager of a part of a business understands the dozen or so employees underneath him,and effectively manages them.Also communism forgets that individual humans are fallable.This is why all attempts at socialism inevitably fall into a sort of dictatorship.People,granted with unnatural,incredible power that is granted to them by socialism,inevitably abuse it.Capitalism is better by separating authority of the state and of productoin,to prevent totalitarianism from developing.

We ended on a rather cordial note last time, but I didn't want you to think that your response has gone unread or unconsidered. :) I appreciate the time and thought you have put into responding to me - I can appreciate it because I try to do the same. :)

I don't believe I said that.
My point, however, is that the similiarity between the pigs and the humans is that they are both ruling classes, not that the pigs somehow became Capitalist.

Capitalism is an economic theory, much like Darwinism. It is not traditionally an ideology to be promoted to protect a status quo, but rather a description of economic principles we have observed to work and have observed not to work through the centuries. There are flaws in capitalism, much like there are flaws in Darwinism, but in the end it is the best description of the principles of economic theory we have.

To put it in scientific terms, it is the best explanation to fit the data, to be refined as we obtain more and more data. Communism isn't a refinement of the theory - it is an ideological rejection of it, much like "Intelligent Design" is an ideological rejection of naturalist evolution theory. All it does is point out the flaws - which is good. It does little, however, to explain the evidence apart from simplifying history as a giant class struggle.

Communists believe that if we simply eliminate the "ruling class", things will be okay. It never seems to occur to Communists that it might not be possible to eliminate the "ruling class", any more than it seems to occur to proponents of Intelligent Design that there may very well be "no God".

Theories lack substance when there is little in the way of evidence for their fundamental premises.



I didn't dodge your point. I disagreed with you, and you have given me little reason not to.

We can agree to disagree. But I very much believe, in Animal Farm terms, that it is not possible to create a society that is not ultimately a "farm" of some sort.

You are arguing that it is possible to have a society that is not a farm... I disagree with this premise and see little evidence to believe otherwise.

You are making the assertion that it's possible... prove it. :) The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those making extraordinary claims.


The book is not a condemnation of capitalism. The book is a condemnation of Stalinism. Throughout, however, the book PRESUPPOSES the evil of capitalism. This is built into the metaphors it employs.
Capitalism is an economic theory based upon what economists have observed in the functions of economies.

It makes about as much sense to talk about the evils of Capitalism as it does to talk about the evils of Evolution. Yes, there are things about both theories we certainly do not like... but ultimately, at the end of the day, no one is stating either theory is about the way things SHOULD be, but rather that they are descriptions of how things are by nature.


That is why I call it a leftist, indeed ardently socialist, polemic against Stalinism.

And it is, we agree. I have never argued that Napoleon's order is a Communist order... I understand Communist ideals better than you might think.

I think you are missing my argument, though. I am arguing that Communism has failed to show that it is based on an adequate understanding of reality apart from pure idealism. I am arguing that no matter how good the intentions revolutionaries might have, Communism inevitably devolves into something similiar to Stalinism by virtue of the fact that reality was improperly grasped in the first place and problems were improperly dealt with.

And I believe Animal Farm reflects this idea, whether Orwell intended it or not. At the end of the day, all the societies were STILL farms... not because the pigs decided to work with the humans, but rather because it's unavoidable.




I don't see that. The connection between the Rebellion and the power seizure of Napoleon is too weak for it. I don't know if there's a prescriptive point to Animal Farm at all, beyond "don't trust the government"; his main interest is simply in attacking Stalinism.
That's not my point.

My point is that ruling classes are a natural part of reality that cannot be avoided.



Again, I don't see that. How exactly does the book illustrate this point?

... the ruling class DIDN'T disappear. Anywhere. Not in reality, not in the book. It is a passive point, whether Orwell intended it or not (and you may certainly argue that he didn't intend that - it's fine. It's irrelevant to my point).



Do you often contradict yourself in one paragraph? Make a choice. Either communism has been tried, or it hasn't.
There is no contradiction there - the apparent contradiction is the result of my trying to accomodate your dogma that Communism has never been tried. The poor wording is my fault.

Communism has been tried. It has not, however, been implimented. I argue that it cannot be implimented by virtue of its flawed understanding of reality. It has been tried, it has failed, and it ended up turning into the decrepit societies you dismiss as "State Capitalist" (which from a capitalistic point-of-view is every bit as much of an oxymoron as the term "Communist State").

Societies which have been labelled "Communist" were not Communist... but I think that you dismiss much evidence against your system when you try to ignore that they tried.


And the whole idea of "impossible to try" is incoherent anyway, because trying to try amounts to trying, and if there is no attempt at trying, how can we judge it impossible?
I meant impossible to implement. Poor wording on my part.


I don't know; Jones never did return, after all.
No. He was replaced by Napoleon.

Thus the Ruling Class was never abolished, just changed.


I must have, but even if I am wrong, my error pales in comparison to the notion that Animal Farm is not suffused with opposition to capitalism.
You haven't shown that - all you have argued is that Animal Farm is full of opposition of what Orwell might have THOUGHT was capitalism. If such was his argument, it stands that what he presents is an over simplified strawman... I like to give him the benefit of the doubt.


It matters little, because Orwell certainly thought that the Western European nations were capitalist.
Capitalism is a theory explaining our understanding of sound economics. It is not a perfect theory, or an ideal, but a description. Nations described as "capitalist" often have very different policies among themselves.

I've said it before and I will say it again - Capitalism is a economic theory akin to the scientific theory of evolution. It is an explanation of how things works, not an explanation of how things SHOULD work.



A farm, perhaps. A farm where some work and others profit, not really (or, at least, not necessarily).
I do not think it is avoidable, much as we may wish otherwise... same as the fact that it's not likely God will come down from heaven and introduce unicorns into the ecosystem.


Yes... because Animal Farm is a historical allegory that deals with Stalinist Russia. There is no place for such a society.

That said - read Homage to Catalonia.
The fact that it has not been observed, neither in the book nor in reality, is exactly my point.

This was more or less the reason I made the earlier comparison with the arguments Christians throw out regarding a number of things. They make claims of possibilities that have never been witnessed, argue that something could hypothetically happen, and then demand those of us who doubt it to prove a negative.



Mercantilism is opposed to a free market, not to capitalism. Capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production.

State intervention always has and always will accompany capitalism.

Yes and no.

Capitalism is a theory, as I've stated prior in this post. It is an explanation of ideal economic relations between groups and individuals based on prior observations. Insofar as it is a theory, it does a good job of explaining the relations we observe - it holds as a hypothetical that non-state intervention might be best for an economy.

But it admits that such is hypothetical and not likely. And indeed, a pure free market is nigh impossible to put into place - there are always practical and political concerns which mitigate that. Insofar as we have been able to observe the hypothesis, it has shown itself true, but practically speaking it is an impossibility.

Like I said, capitalism isn't an ideology to be implemented in pure form. It is an analysis of case examples from history and an examination of the economic laws at work in interactions.


So? If there are no positions of power, there's not much they can do.

Positions of power are inherent in any group activity.

There is a key distinction between power-in-title and actual power. You can abolish titles and official "positions of power", but you cannot abolish actual power - it's inherent in all human interactions.

Within a group, there are always various personalities. For the group to function efficiently, there is usually a "leader" of some sort... look at Snowball. He did not SEEK power, but he had it... not in a title, but because he represented ideals and action. And this sort of power is not bad in itself... it's necessary.

But for every Snowball there is a Napoleon, who will use their natural leadership qualities for their own advancement.


If we eliminate class distinctions, there is no "vacuum."

You are the one claiming that class distinctions can be eliminated. I am arguing that they can't and that history gives us no reason to think they can.

The vacuum occurs when we overthrow the ruling class without destroying the class system.
You are making the extraordinary claim... so prove it. :)

Until that is done, I'm not sure I can accept your hypothesis as possible.


Because you got Lenin and Trotsky. They are not the only options.

The majority of the options are not Lenin and Trotsky. Stalins and Maos and Pol Pots always tend to enter the system sooner or later.


Regardless, the fact remains that he did not actually implement the policies I propose.

Thus, in criticizing said policies, to bring up Stalin is just a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man. You have no reason to believe you would have necessarily have done differently in his situation, faced with his circumstances. Nor is there any reason to believe that the policies you would propose would have actually been viable options given the circumstances of REALITY. Nor is there historical proof to indicate that your policies would have worked, as great as they might sound on paper.

I argue that the original Communist societies initially tried policies that sounded GREAT on paper... but didn't work out, leading to the necessity of harsher measures. I've never argued that the Communist Revolution of the Soviets failed in the 1990s... it failed back when they took power circa 1917.

When great ideals are faced with the complexities and difficulties of reality, they ALWAYS have a tendency to be compromised to greater and lesser degrees, depending upon how flawed their understanding of reality might have initially been.


The problem is neither with the people nor with reality. What are you talking about?
You missed my point.

The problem is with the flawed Communist UNDERSTANDING of reality. That is why a successful Communist state has never been created.

But Communists have this knack of blaming people and the circumstances of reality for their failure to create a Communist state. Never ONCE do they ever stop to think about whether what they want to do is really possible... that part is taken unquestionly as dogma.

And thus, when it fails, such failure MUST have been the fault of something other than the obvious: The Communist Hypothesis itself.



Yeah... because there WEREN'T ANY in the 1930s.
Right.

And there never have been.

And there never will be.

Because it's a flawed conception of reality.



Before? "Spilling the Spanish Beans" is full of distaste for Stalinism. And the quote regarded fascism, not Stalinism.

My point is that harsh events occurred that might have softened his prior understanding of capitalism between writing "Spilling the Spanish Beans" and writing Animal Farm.


No, it isn't. You asked me how I would extend it to a global level. I told you. Now you can go in any number of directions. You can explain theoretically why it wouldn't work, you can advance an empirical argument based on similar attempts, and so on.
You should know better... you're asking me to prove a negative.

You are making the extraordinary claim that a system that has never been implemented before would somehow work.

The burden of proof is on you, every bit as much as it is on those that assert God exists or those that assert there are aliens orbiting the earth on flying saucers.



True... you cannot achieve certainty without experience. But this is true for everything.
And without experience of something working, you cannot really claim that it works.


Actually, not really. I see no reason why communism can't coexist peacefully with capitalism... under the condition that the capitalist countries actually permit such a situation, which, judging by history, they would not.
And I see no reason why Communism can exist... period.

My point was that, in such a circumstance, when there are failures on the part of the flawed Communist system to function, the blame is generally placed on capitalist societies.

See: The Cold War and the fallout of the Soviet Revolution.


If present centralized economic structures are to be maintained, the best option is probably a compromise between market exchange among publically-owned corporations and more traditional planning.

Of course, I support abolishing such structures. I think they are incompatible with a free society.
I'm not certain that such structures can be abolished, personally.

As to the other point, I'm not sure I disagree. I think reformation of the system to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth among all the classes is absolutely necessary if a market-system is to work properly.

There are various ways of doing this, some which lean towards the left and some which lean towards the right.



(If you will permit me to whine for a moment, that is one of the problems with arguing with you people... not any stubbornness or lack of reason on your part, nor any inability to respond on mine, but simply that my position is extremely difficult to defend if its elements are isolated. I am a fairly recent convert to the radical variety of communism I have been advocating here; for a long time my preference was some variety of socialism operating with at least some market mechanisms, and without full economic equality.

Basically, my position is that radical economic equality in the context of a communist economic system is good IF it is accompanied by certain very important changes in the way we live, and without those changes, its benefits will not manifest themselves and its costs will be far more severe.)
Whine away, we all have to vent sometimes. :)

It is not easy to argue a radical line, and I understand that. Nor is it particularly easy to argue against one, when, at least to us outsiders, it can appear dogmatic at times.

I do believe it is necessary to isolate certain elements for criticism... if the elements are flawed by themselves, they are likely flawed when combined with OTHER flawed elements.

This has been a rather long discussion... I think you're doing quite fine, really. After all, we haven't broken down to personal insults or swearing, and any time that happens is a GOOD thing. :)



This is a giant straw man.

No, it's not. It's an explanation of various factors that historically made a centralized economy impossible whenever it has been tried.

I could add even more if you wish and go into further detail if you need me to... I've studied this a bit. :)


No, I was being sarcastic.

You referred to Ancient Greece. I responded by pointing out that we have proof that more or less autonomous entities (nation-states) can cooperate peacefully, especially when cooperation is mutually beneficial and power differentials are not severe.
My bad.

Cooperation is good, but I believe it's only possible to a certain extent.



Actually, most idealist communists see a strong economy as a prerequisite and even a consequence of communism. I am not an idealist communist; I do indeed dismiss the importance of a strong economy.
Goodness, I hope not.

A well-functioning economy is all about the processes necessary to take limited raw materials, convert them into finished goods, and distribute them in some manner so that they can be used.

Marx's main criticism of capitalism was that the structures involved in such a system ultimately fall apart economically for various reasons, and his writings were very much about how to construct a stronger economic system than those found in capitalist countries.

It is a well functioning economy that determines the ability of people to be fed, clothed, entertained, housed, and practically everything else that we often take for granted.

Resources are not unlimited. People want to eat. They want to be clothed. They want to be housed. They want to have a decent standard of living. More than that, they need all of that. Without economic efficiency, all the labor in the world with all the resources of the world won't produce squat.

If you want to see a revolutionary that ignored economic efficiency, look at Pol Pot in Cambodia. His atrocity was more than just the killing fields. His genocide was against the "leach classes" from the city - he favored the life of the country side. People from the city were the ones put to death... folks from the country side were left to live under a planned economy. And they starved... they lacked the economic efficiency necessary to feed everyone. Only people with guns got to eat.

No, they weren't Communist, but they were trying to create a Communist agrarian society. It was fortunate that the VietCong forces (who, I know, also weren't Communist) intervened and stopped the atrocities that were occuring.


I am not interested in that. I am interested in granting human beings satisfaction in ways that will ensure that they do not have near-unlimited wants for scarce resources. That particular tendency seems purely cultural.
You're not going to satisfy them if you cannot find ways to feed and cloth them. They won't be satisfied if no one wants to become doctors or engineers. There will be no satisfaction if there isn't a sound economic system in place to make sure resources are properly distributed so that everything can move smoothly.



It's rather good at maximizing productivity, but I'm not particularly interested in that. Human beings survived and prospered at far lower levels of productivity than we possess today.
Yes. And populations were much lower and people did not live as long.

We've only been able to maintain greater populations through increased efficiencies in production. That is reality. That is a part of the reality that Communism ignores and why it cannot work.

Also note that quality of life in the past was sub-optimal even for upper classes, and peasants did not fare well at all.


I want to meet basic human needs and ensure human freedom. Frankly, the rest can burn.
Basic human needs aren't so "basic". For an acceptable standard of living, human beings need a diverse diet capable of providing all of their nutritional needs. They need people who are willing to be doctors and teachers and to do the jobs that are a bit more specialized than pure farm work or factory work. People need shelter. They need medicine. They need a degree of comfort for the pains of life to be bearable. They need an assortment of things - it's not pure "want" that causes the difficulties.



Oh, you shouldn't. I'm quite aware that my proposals are not going to be implemented anytime soon - or ever, quite possibly.
It's not just that they won't be... they can't be. They are unrealistic. They are lacking in an understanding of fundamental aspects of reality.



No one has the right to power over others.
I agree... no one has a right to power.

But it's unavoidable, and the more you try to avoid it, the more power you place into their hands.

The reason I question Orwell's faith in a classless society in his later years is his book 1984, which is my absolute favorite and which I have read MANY MANY times. There is no allegorical Capitalist class there... the capitalists had been destroyed. There is just power. Pure power placed in the hands of people that admit that it is their desire.

Winston thinks he can abolish the Inner Party... but you can't. Abolish the Inner Party of today and become the Inner Party of tomorrow... it cannot be avoided.

And capitalist society was indeed preferable to that created by the revolution.

We ended on a rather cordial note last time, but I didn't want you to think that your response has gone unread or unconsidered. :) I appreciate the time and thought you have put into responding to me - I can appreciate it because I try to do the same. :)


My point, however, is that the similiarity between the pigs and the humans is that they are both ruling classes, not that the pigs somehow became Capitalist.

Capitalism is an economic theory, much like Darwinism. It is not traditionally an ideology to be promoted to protect a status quo, but rather a description of economic principles we have observed to work and have observed not to work through the centuries. There are flaws in capitalism, much like there are flaws in Darwinism, but in the end it is the best description of the principles of economic theory we have.

To put it in scientific terms, it is the best explanation to fit the data, to be refined as we obtain more and more data. Communism isn't a refinement of the theory - it is an ideological rejection of it, much like "Intelligent Design" is an ideological rejection of naturalist evolution theory. All it does is point out the flaws - which is good. It does little, however, to explain the evidence apart from simplifying history as a giant class struggle.

Communists believe that if we simply eliminate the "ruling class", things will be okay. It never seems to occur to Communists that it might not be possible to eliminate the "ruling class", any more than it seems to occur to proponents of Intelligent Design that there may very well be "no God".

Theories lack substance when there is little in the way of evidence for their fundamental premises.



You are making the extraordinary claim... so prove it. :)

Until that is done, I'm not sure I can accept your hypothesis as possible.


The majority of the options are not Lenin and Trotsky. Stalins and Maos and Pol Pots always tend to enter the system sooner or later.


No, it's not a straw man. You have no reason to believe you would have necessarily have done differently in his situation, faced with his circumstances. Nor is there any reason to believe that the policies you would propose would have actually been viable options given the circumstances of REALITY. Nor is there historical proof to indicate that your policies would have worked, as great as they might sound on paper.

I argue that the original Communist societies initially tried policies that sounded GREAT on paper... but didn't work out, leading to the necessity of harsher measures. I've never argued that the Communist Revolution of the Soviets failed in the 1990s... it failed back when they took power circa 1917.

When great ideals are faced with the complexities and difficulties of reality, they ALWAYS have a tendency to be compromised to greater and lesser degrees, depending upon how flawed their understanding of reality might have initially been.



You missed my point.

The problem is with the flawed Communist UNDERSTANDING of reality. That is why a successful Communist state has never been created.

But Communists have this knack of blaming people and the circumstances of reality for their failure to create a Communist state. Never ONCE do they ever stop to think about whether what they want to do is really possible... that part is taken unquestionly as dogma.

And thus, when it fails, such failure MUST have been the fault of something other than the obvious: The Communist Hypothesis itself.




Right.

And there never have been.

And there never will be.

Because it's a flawed conception of reality.




My point is that harsh events occurred that might have softened his prior understanding of capitalism between writing "Spilling the Spanish Beans" and writing Animal Farm.


You should know better... you're asking me to prove a negative.

You are making the extraordinary claim that a system that has never been implemented before would somehow work.

The burden of proof is on you, every bit as much as it is on those that assert God exists or those that assert there are aliens orbiting the earth on flying saucers.



And without experience of something working, you cannot really claim that it works.


And I see no reason why Communism can exist... period.

My point was that, in such a circumstance, when there are failures on the part of the flawed Communist system to function, the blame is generally placed on capitalist societies.

See: The Cold War and the fallout of the Soviet Revolution.


I'm not certain that such structures can be abolished, personally.

As to the other point, I'm not sure I disagree. I think reformation of the system to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth among all the classes is absolutely necessary if a market-system is to work properly.

There are various ways of doing this, some which lean towards the left and some which lean towards the right.



Whine away, we all have to vent sometimes. :)

It is not easy to argue a radical line, and I understand that. Nor is it particularly easy to argue against one, when, at least to us outsiders, it can appear dogmatic at times.

I do believe it is necessary to isolate certain elements for criticism... if the elements are flawed by themselves, they are likely flawed when combined with OTHER flawed elements.

This has been a rather long discussion... I think you're doing quite fine, really. After all, we haven't broken down to personal insults or swearing, and any time that happens is a GOOD thing. :)



No, it's not. It's an explanation of various factors that historically made a centralized economy impossible whenever it has been tried.

I could add even more if you wish and go into further detail if you need me to... I've studied this a bit. :)


My bad.

Cooperation is good, but I believe it's only possible to a certain extent.



Goodness, I hope not.

A well-functioning economy is all about the processes necessary to take limited raw materials, convert them into finished goods, and distribute them in some manner so that they can be used.

Marx's main criticism of capitalism was that the structures involved in such a system ultimately fall apart economically for various reasons, and his writings were very much about how to construct a stronger economic system than those found in capitalist countries.

It is a well functioning economy that determines the ability of people to be fed, clothed, entertained, housed, and practically everything else that we often take for granted.

Resources are not unlimited. People want to eat. They want to be clothed. They want to be housed. They want to have a decent standard of living. More than that, they need all of that. Without economic efficiency, all the labor in the world with all the resources of the world won't produce squat.

If you want to see a revolutionary that ignored economic efficiency, look at Pol Pot in Cambodia. His atrocity was more than just the killing fields. His genocide was against the "leach classes" from the city - he favored the life of the country side. People from the city were the ones put to death... folks from the country side were left to live under a planned economy. And they starved... they lacked the economic efficiency necessary to feed everyone. Only people with guns got to eat.

No, they weren't Communist, but they were trying to create a Communist agrarian society. It was fortunate that the VietCong forces (who, I know, also weren't Communist) intervened and stopped the atrocities that were occuring.


You're not going to satisfy them if you cannot find ways to feed and cloth them. They won't be satisfied if no one wants to become doctors or engineers. There will be no satisfaction if there isn't a sound economic system in place to make sure resources are properly distributed so that everything can move smoothly.



Yes. And populations were much lower and people did not live as long.

We've only been able to maintain greater populations through increased efficiencies in production. That is reality. That is a part of the reality that Communism ignores and why it cannot work.

Also note that quality of life in the past was sub-optimal even for upper classes, and peasants did not fare well at all.


Basic human needs aren't so "basic". For an acceptable standard of living, human beings need a diverse diet capable of providing all of their nutritional needs. They need people who are willing to be doctors and teachers and to do the jobs that are a bit more specialized than pure farm work or factory work. People need shelter. They need medicine. They need a degree of comfort for the pains of life to be bearable. They need an assortment of things - it's not pure "want" that causes the difficulties.



It's not just that they won't be... they can't be. They are unrealistic. They are lacking in an understanding of fundamental aspects of reality.



I agree... no one has a right to power.

But it's unavoidable, and the more you try to avoid it, the more power you place into their hands.

The reason I question Orwell's faith in a classless society in his later years is his book 1984, which is my absolute favorite and which I have read MANY MANY times. There is no allegorical Capitalist class there... the capitalists had been destroyed. There is just power. Pure power placed in the hands of people that admit that it is their desire.

Winston thinks he can abolish the Inner Party... but you can't. Abolish the Inner Party of today and become the Inner Party of tomorrow... it cannot be avoided.

And capitalist society was indeed preferable to that created by the revolution.

:eek: THIS IS A LONG FUCKING POST!!!!!this must be the record or something!

Excuse me? I live in a Canada, we are a VERY SUCCESSFUL SOCIALISM. You see, Communism has failed because they tried to do it all at once. We up north are smart enough to do it gradually over a period of a few hundred years. By the way, we're a constitutional monarche, not a totaltarian dictatorship!

Ahem? It is fantastic to see such pride in your economic system, but perhaps it would be worthwhile to actual consider your arguments. Despite your spurious claim, Canada is not a "very successful socialism." Indeed, it has certain social programs that have proven successful, but the Canadian economy is very market-oriented. And, technically, Canada is a "confederation with a parliamentary democracy," not a constitutional monarchy. ;)

Whoever said communism was anthetical to personal possessions? Oh, that's right, no one did! Stop with the "absolute equality" straw man argument. No one on the left wants everyone to be identical or all individuality to be erased.

Human civiliation started without a concept of "private property." All of the earliest human social groups were communal in nature, a sort of "primitive communism", if you will.

Early human civilizations were communal out of necessity. This is particularly true of nomadic, hunter-gatherer societies. Note that with the development of agricultural cultivation, cummunal societies became passe in favor of more advanced and structured societal and economic systems.

Socialism works in large groups. Look at Canada, or the Economic threshhold of the world, CHINA! How many people are in China? 1, 313, 973, 700 people! If thats not large I don't know what is!

Socialism works in large groups. Look at Canada, or the Economic threshhold of the world, CHINA! How many people are in China? 1, 313, 973, 700 people! If thats not large I don't know what is!

China's social policies are "working" only in that they are becoming increasingly market-oriented while still maintaining state control of major industries. It may also be noted that China is considered a "socialist market economy," not strictly socialist, but still retaining a significant socialist foundation. The economy is becoming increasingly decentralized, in fact turning away from the social tendencies required by the highly centralized political system to remain intact. So, in essence, China is a communist state with an increasingly market-oriented economy, which will, if things continue in their present course, result in significantly increased tension between government and economy.

As practiced in the past, its just a veneer. The Soviet Union was no more communist or socialist than it was a duck.

That's basically just what I said.

The only societies that have ever succeeded at communism with which I am familiar are isolated pockets in China that have become adapted to it over the course of millennia.

We oppose poverty on principle, wherever and whenever we find it. Saying that a working class person in the west is so much better off than his third world counterpart and therefore shouldn't complain is nothing more than a deflection, and a convenient way to deflate any change.

It's also not what I was saying.

You don't seem to know how hard most people work for the paltry wage they get, only to see it disappear with nothing left over.

No, I know. I also know there is basically no way to fix it at present. You guys vastly overestimate the amount of wealth in the world.

A) It's never worked in practice because it keeps being crushed by military dictatorships or co-opted by Leninist bastards.

Again, you're just rephrasing what I said. It never works in practice. In the long run, it just results in the gutting of their national infrastructure and a few mountains of dead bodies. The reasons for these failures are are irrelevant.

You're just arguing that the reasons are purely human, not ideological. I'm telling you if the ideology fails to take into account the behavior of humans, then the ideology is flawed. And at any rate it doesn't matter where the flaw lies: if it is constantly being subverted wherever it springs up, then there is a systemic flaw, one that won't be overcome if only we all just quit resisting and believed in the redemptive power of communism.

B) I'd say he's vastly underestimating the amount of wealth in the world.

I've done the math. There's less than $10,000 a head in wealth in the world. And most of that money is bound up in resources that cannot be liquidated (i.e., much of it exists in the form of property, like airplanes and factories, that someone has to own).

You seem to think that all socialists are marxists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am not even remotely interested in getting bogged down in worthless semantic details with you, so don't even start.

Japanese workers are no better off than their American or European counterparts.

They have lower unemployment and higher wages almost across the board.

And unlike America or Europe, their system is set up to afford workers lifetime employment.

But they are still poor in the society that they live in.

Still means nothing. American poor drive cars, drink coffee, watch TV, etc. They are not going to revolt. Most poor people in other countries who have far less don't even revolt.

Most are awash in a sea of debt, and will never move out of the income group they were born in, regardless of how much hard work they put out.

The fact that debt is an option available to them speaks volumes to the economic bounty to which they can partake. You don't see these levels of debt in Third World countries because there are few institutions there capable of generating it.

Flight before fight only proves that people are rational. If flight appears safer or more lucrative then years of strikes and protest, most people will take.

Ergo, no great communist revolution.

I'm talking about in the West. There is no better propaganda then pointing to Soviet atrocities to deflate left wing causes.
Yes, this is coming from the people that defended the Soviet Union, hated Ronald Reagan and Joe McCarthy, and coddled Soviet spies in the government:fluffle:

This is the problem I have with Communism, really.

As you noticed, I have argued against the system. Unlike many detractors, I am fully aware of the fact that the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the host of other countries that have called themselves "Communist" most certainly do not reflect the ideals proposed by Communism and thus perhaps are not fairly called "fair representations of Communism".

I get that.

Communist societies were the attempts of some to impliment Communist systems. They FAILED. Yes, they ended up as what you call "State Capitalist" rather than "Communist"... I have NEVER seen a decent argument to show that it isn't unavoidable. The best I have seen, as Soheran did, are attempts to point out how it MIGHT work - ideas that are more or less hypothetical but lacking concrete evidence taken from historical examples.

Do you really think that none of those that ended up creating "State Capitalist" systems (as you call them - they are about as Capitalist as they are Communist) had good intentions? That they didn't try to model their systems after successful small-level operations like the the communes? How many of you have stopped to think about the possibility that they TRIED to impliment the form of Communism you advocate and just couldn't do it because it fundamentally conflicts with the natural order of reality?


I can tell you exactly why they failed in implementation. The means by which these societies tried to acheive communism is counter-intutive on the theoretical level. In these societies, which were barely coming out of the feudal system, a vanguard party took control of the state, and centralized all of the productive means in society. Mind you, this was done to acheive decentralized worker control of production and the abolition of classes and oppression. Not that an omnipotent state can get in the way of that. :rolleyes:

How you really accomplish communism? That's quite different. What is required is first the end of private property, and its replacement with right of occupancy and use. Workplaces are now run democratically in a market free from the excessive abuses of private property. From here, we balance worker control with consumer councils, which determine what needs to be produced. Once this is acheived, we can start to phase out the market system, and replace it with consumption based on both effort and need.

Once we reach this point, we have real socialism. We have eliminated most of the petty lines that divide people, and now we can build solidarity--equal consideration for the affairs and wellbeing of others. As we build enough solidarity among people, we no longer need to worry about whether or not people are being renumerated fairly based on the sacrifices they make, and can instead focus on getting people what they need to completely fulfill the human experience. Once fairness is no longer an issue in social relations, and we instead work on ensuring true humanity to our fellow human beings, we have reached "communism" in its pure sense. That's how I think that any end to capitalism must be done. It may take centuries to fully get it done, but I think it can work.

I can tell you exactly why they failed in implementation. The means by which these societies tried to acheive communism is counter-intutive on the theoretical level. In these societies, which were barely coming out of the feudal system, a vanguard party took control of the state, and centralized all of the productive means in society. Mind you, this was done to acheive decentralized worker control of production and the abolition of classes and oppression. Not that an omnipotent state can get in the way of that. :rolleyes:

How you really accomplish communism? That's quite different. What is required is first the end of private property, and its replacement with right of occupancy and use. Workplaces are now run democratically in a market free from the excessive abuses of private property. From here, we balance worker control with consumer councils, which determine what needs to be produced. Once this is acheived, we can start to phase out the market system, and replace it with consumption based on both effort and need.

Once we reach this point, we have real socialism. We have eliminated most of the petty lines that divide people, and now we can build solidarity--equal consideration for the affairs and wellbeing of others. As we build enough solidarity among people, we no longer need to worry about whether or not people are being renumerated fairly based on the sacrifices they make, and can instead focus on getting people what they need to completely fulfill the human experience. Once fairness is no longer an issue in social relations, and we instead work on ensuring true humanity to our fellow human beings, we have reached "communism" in its pure sense. That's how I think that any end to capitalism must be done. It may take centuries to fully get it done, but I think it can work.

Humanity is driven to succeed, and exceed. Individual survival above all else. Tell me, in anything other than an ideal world, where would the populations of entire nations act to serve the interests of the whole, at the expense of serving himself?

This also seems to be the predominant precept of both Islam and Christianity. Altruism, serving others before oneself, is very much a central tenet in many religious teachings. So, it is not out of the question that it is possible. The difficulty, however, comes in implementing an economic system that would represent a destruction, or at the least a complete reversal of current and past human behavior and tendencies, transferring the idea of self-preservation from an individual to a communal basis. This, I think, is the real issue--how to effect a complete psychological reversal in human inclinations.

Humanity is driven to succeed, and exceed. Individual survival above all else. Tell me, in anything other than an ideal world, where would the populations of entire nations act to serve the interests of the whole, at the expense of serving himself?

This also seems to be the predominant precept of both Islam and Christianity. Altruism, serving others before oneself, is very much a central tenet in many religious teachings. So, it is not out of the question that it is possible. The difficulty, however, comes in implementing an economic system that would represent a destruction, or at the least a complete reversal of current and past human behavior and tendencies, transferring the idea of self-preservation from an individual to a communal basis. This, I think, is the real issue--how to effect a complete psychological reversal in human inclinations.

People are pretty malleable. They are both a product of certain genetic codings and a product of their environments. What anthropology teaches us is that most humans have very strong instictive connections to other humans and the social group. What remains is to allow the individual the room to flourish without destroying equity. What we need is a balance between individualism and collectivism.

People are pretty malleable. They are both a product of certain genetic codings and a product of their environments. What anthropology teaches us is that most humans have very strong instictive connections to other humans and the social group. What remains is to allow the individual the room to flourish without destroying equity. What we need is a balance between individualism and collectivism.

Undoubtedly. However, these instinctive connections to the human social group do not preclude the individual need to survive on a per capita basis. Thus, we develop ties within our social group, bonds, that ultimately serve a purpose of self-preservation. Each person develops his or her own social rapport, which serves as a buffer, a means to the ultimate end of individual survival. This extends only so far as that individual is concerned--there can be no, and I say this only in the context of human experience, extension of this so that every individual creates a similar rapport with humanity as a whole.

If you, or anyone, can show me a society completely devoid of human selfishness--the desire for self-preservation through individual means--and where this is replaced instead by a communal society in which the individual exists as a member of such a society, and through the realization of societal, versus individual, survival, much as a circle continues and supports itself, each arc contributing to the whole as without even the smallest arc that whole would cease to be a circle, then I will believe in socialism as a viable social structure.

If you, or anyone, can show me a society completely devoid of human selfishness--the desire for self-preservation through individual means--and where this is replaced instead by a communal society in which the individual exists as a member of such a society, and through the realization of societal, versus individual, survival, much as a circle continues and supports itself, each arc contributing to the whole as without even the smallest arc that whole would cease to be a circle, then I will believe in socialism as a viable social structure.

That's not as hard as it seems. Native Americans and Australian Aborigines follow a societal model very much like the one you describe. The society is communal, and the individual's first duty is to the tribe's wellbeing. They have no individual possessions, and no concept of ownership. One cannot withhold any resource from the tribe without a damn good reason. They don't have the problem of theft or covetous behavior like hierarchal societies.

Why does everybody hate Communism? It's not bad. It's good! People work and can get whatever they want from the store. Nobody is poor and nobody is rich.

Why is everybody so anti-communist???:mad:
Why do you think no one would be poor? Everyone would be poor - they'd just all be equally poor. Even Marx recognised that production would fall through the floor under communism.

That's not as hard as it seems. Native Americans and Australian Aborigines follow a societal model very much like the one you describe. The society is communal, and the individual's first duty is to the tribe's wellbeing. They have no individual possessions, and no concept of ownership. One cannot withhold any resource from the tribe without a damn good reason. They don't have the problem of theft or covetous behavior like hierarchal societies.

Yes, the Native Americans and Aborigines did follow such a communal way of life in the past. Now, I cannot speak for the Aborigines, but I know from firsthand experience that Native Americans do not live the lives of their ancestors. The United States government and the modern way of life successfully prevent this. Unfortunately, while many Native Americans are struggling to maintain their heritage, we are witnessing a steady decline in the vestiges of Native American culture. The communal society that governed the people before American continent was colonized has all but disappeared; it cannot survive under current conditions.

A second point. These past communal societies were successful (insofar as practical examples of socialism are concerned) because the social groups were quite small and necessary for survival. As I mentioned in the paragraph just before the one you quoted, this is a prime example of individuals developing communal bonds within a specific society, thus relying only on that group for survival, and none of the many others that indeed existed at the same time in the same area. It may also be noted that this type of communal society was only witnessed amongst the Native Americans of the Great Plains, where life was governed by the ability to retrieve food via the hunt--thus, land as a result of agricultural production was not a commodity. This is one reason why communal societies cannot exist in its ideal form in any kind of large, sustainable population: agriculture necessitates land ownership.

The problem with Communism as practiced the world over is, once the communist come to power they outlaw all political partys with diffrent economic, political and social views.

In theory the workers control everything, in practice the government controls everything.

Once the state controls all the means of production, and civil social organizations there can be no opposition to anything and it creates an automatic dictatorship government.

The democratic European socialist nations of Europe can work with diffrent political partys with diffrent poliitical, economic and social views because they rely more on providing governmet social services, some would say government public welfare, through taxation than government ownership of all the means of production and civil social organizations.

A second point. These past communal societies were successful (insofar as practical examples of socialism are concerned) because the social groups were quite small and necessary for survival. As I mentioned in the paragraph just before the one you quoted, this is a prime example of individuals developing communal bonds within a specific society, thus relying only on that group for survival, and none of the many others that indeed existed at the same time in the same area. It may also be noted that this type of communal society was only witnessed amongst the Native Americans of the Great Plains, where life was governed by the ability to retrieve food via the hunt--thus, land as a result of agricultural production was not a commodity. This is one reason why communal societies cannot exist in its ideal form in any kind of large, sustainable population: agriculture necessitates land ownership.

Not so. Even the farming societies of the Iroqouis and Algonquin lacked concepts of private property. They existed without even a concept of personal possessions. Many of their villages became quite large (nearly thousands) and they still worked out. They did this by decentralizing decision making. Decisions were made only by those who were affected by it.
With modern telecomms, it is very possible to have socialism with millions of people contributing to a large, technical society.

Why does everybody hate Communism? It's not bad. It's good! People work and can get whatever they want from the store. Nobody is poor and nobody is rich.

Why is everybody so anti-communist???:mad:

Its already been said in this thread. But so help me I'll say it again. The implementation tends to be crap.