NationStates Jolt Archive

The communists don't want to be judged on the amount of work they do. They want to be judged on whether or not they are breathing.

It's the capitalists who are unrealistic by claiming that businesses will voluntarily respect the environment even when that cuts into profit.
This is a myth. Propaganda if you will, spread by people such as yourself. People who damage the environment on purpose are prosecuted. The only exception is oil, and you're an idiot if you see no justification in this.

Quote:
It's the same as capitalism except you replace currency with respect. Instead of the best workers being hated, the best workers are respected.

interesting point however if the people would aim to work harder rather then move higher without any form of currency for the state not themselves isnt that by default communism?

interesting point however if the people would aim to work harder rather then move higher without any form of currency for the state not themselves isnt that by default communism?

You can buy a whole lot more with a high level of respect than anything that all the money in the world can. Communism allows for more corruptability....

When trading in huge amounts of money there is never a risk. Infact if you have huge amounts of money you buy currency, not stocks, it is far safer and gives you better yields. But still, there are people who are not spending peanuts or millions but are spending tens or hundreds of thousands. They are the normal stockbroker making their wage in an honest way.Well I agree small stockbrokers are working for the money they get. However, I'm not sure their work is useful at all.

Well I agree small stockbrokers are working for the money they get. However, I'm not sure their work is useful at all.
Then read my post on why they are important and redecide.

The communists don't want to be judged on the amount of work they do. They want to be judged on whether or not they are breathing.
Some of them yes, but most just want the just reward for their work.

Well I agree small stockbrokers are working for the money they get. However, I'm not sure their work is useful at all.
Well, your certainty of their worth is not in question, and thank god, we would be here forever!

Some of them yes, but most just want the just reward for their work.
Then why do they promote communism? Capitalism, for the most part, does the best job of rewarding people according to their work.

You can buy a whole lot more with a high level of respect than anything that all the money in the world can. Communism allows for more corruptability....

Any system of government has corruptability just because the government is communism doesnt mean you cant have a effective police force and court system look at what some of the large corporations get away with using a team of lawyers

Any system of government has corruptability just because the government is communism doesnt mean you cant have a effective police force and court system look at what some of the large corporations get away with using a team of lawyers
Communism can't work with any amount of corruptability...
With a police force, you've got a group of people running around telling everyone else to get back into their place and do their work. You move more toward Soviet-style communism...

You can buy a whole lot more with a high level of respect than anything that all the money in the world can. [B]Communism allows for more corruptability....[/B[

EXACTLY! Where corruption can take place; there is a high risk that it will.

Communism in theory works but in practice it destroys the economy. (post war east Germany)

The faults of communism aren't in its "corruptibility", that is irrelevant, any government is corruptible. The faults of communism are in its purported attempt at the destruction of the classes.

Now don't get me wrong, corruption is a problem in capitalism too.

However, in capitalism, when corruption happens, the entire system doesn't crumble.

The faults of communism aren't in its "corruptibility", that is irrelevant, any government is corruptible. The faults of communism are in its purported attempt at the destruction of the classes.
We're not talking about governments.

I would like to introduce a philosophical aspect into this. If communism or capitalism is flawed in reality or ideology then it must be flawed in the other. Communism cannot be perfect or good in theory if it is not in reality, there must be a fault in its theory. It is a common misconception that the two must have different properties; if it is because the theory doesn't take into account particular factors then so be it, both the ideology and the practise is missing both therefore both are imperfect.

What is the theory of communism? Will the most intelligible one of you communists speak on behalf of communism and give it its basis.

Does anyone even know what communism is? It isn't a government, it's an economic system where there are no social classes or forms of exchange.

Does anyone even know what communism is? It isn't a government, it's an economic system where there are no social classes or forms of exchange.
Oh, well, in that case, it appears this 18 page thread is unnecessary.

Communism can't work with any amount of corruptability...
With a police force, you've got a group of people running around telling everyone else to get back into their place and do their work. You move more toward Soviet-style communism...

due to the sense of community work ethic i spoke about before the police wouldnt need to the community would
the police would just enforce a set of laws not force people to work if ppl dont work they are effective outcast and no one would assosiate with them

it would be hard for low level corruption to exist in a society without money you would have to move large shipments of goods to be currupt and cash in on it difficult without leaving a paperwork trail in any modern society even then loss of a % percent of goods could be accounted for the society would still run if it was expected

Hmm...now that I've double thought, I'm going to repost my opinion on stock brokers.

The communist point of view is that they don't do any actualy work. There is no real labor involved in trading stocks, but they make profits anyways and that is leaching.

The counterpoint: The workers have to get paid. To pay the workers, the company has to have some sort of investment before they start making their own profits. Stock brokers take risks and invest in companies, paying the workers who are doing the best job of benefiting the society...without the stock brokers, the workers wouldn't be able to get paid initially...This one?
Ok I'll have to make my position about stockbrokers clearer.
True, some of them take some risks and have to work to analyse this risk. This analysing work is useful and should be paid indeed.
However, this should not be paid more than it deserves.
We have to separate two things. One : the work the analyst does and two : the work the capital does.
The analyst spends time working, this deserves a just pay. But the capital should belong to all the people.
The analyst and the owner are usually two different people when we talk about big money. Usually the big capitalists are paying stockbrokers and analysts at the bank to analyse those things, because their capital is big enough to hire an analyst on top of the factories. While this analyst is exploited, the capital owner is still tanning snorting cocaïn.
Is my analyse correct?

due to the sense of community work ethic i spoke about before the police wouldnt need to the community would
the police would just enforce a set of laws not force people to work if ppl dont work they are effective outcast and no one would assosiate with them

it would be hard for low level corruption to exist in a society without money you would have to move large shipments of goods to be currupt and cash in on it difficult without leaving a paperwork trail in any modern society even then loss of a % percent of goods could be accounted for the society would still run if it was expected
The thing the communists have wrong is their belief that corruption would cease to exist by eliminating currency.

This one?
Ok I'll have to make my position about stockbrokers clearer.
True, some of them take some risks and have to work to analyse this risk. This analysing work is useful and should be paid indeed.
However, this should not be paid more than it deserves.
We have to separate two things. One : the work the analyst does and two : the work the capital does.
The analyst spends time working, this deserves a just pay. But the capital should belong to all the people.
The analyst and the owner are usually two different people when we talk about big money. Usually the big capitalists are paying stockbrokers and analysts at the bank to analyse those things, because their capital is big enough to hire an analyst on top of the factories. While this analyst is exploited, the capital owner is still tanning snorting cocaïn.
Is my analyse correct?

Stock brokers study the market and look for oppurtinities to earn a profit. Their goal may be to earn a profit (so they can afford to live), but what they accomplish is far greater. By knowing (from lots of good experience) what types of companies will do good and bad and how those different companies will be effected by international incidents and such, the stock broker moves his money around to make the best profit, but in doing so, he basically funds the companies which he believes will do the best, making that company do even better, giving it the chance to hire more people or increase their employees' salaries. The evilness of greed that inspires them to earn something helps society, whether or not you like it.

The problem here is that you are trying to place worth on work. Capitalism allows the free natural market forces to decide the worth of things, it allows human nature to decide what is wanted and what is not. You seem to want to have everyone abide by your values and ideas of worth; who put you up there on your high and mighty pedistole and said that you had almighty wisdom in the way of worth...who was it?

No, you cannot decide what everything is worth, because it's not up to you.

The thing the communists have wrong is their belief that corruption would cease to exist by eliminating currency.

As i said it would be difficult but not impossible there will always be a certin amount of corruption no matter what is done the lack of currency just limits the ease of it.

Then why do they promote communism? Capitalism, for the most part, does the best job of rewarding people according to their work.
Well I don't agree. Capitalism rewards people according to their capital.
You may argue that you get capital by work, but even in that case this is not just. Because if someone gets a part of his reward from his capital, it means another man is working for this capital, which means another man gets a lower reward than deserved.

The problem here is that you are trying to place worth on work. Capitalism allows the free natural market forces to decide the worth of things, it allows human nature to decide what is wanted and what is not. You seem to want to have everyone abide by your values and ideas of worth; who put you up there on your high and mighty pedistole and said that you had almighty wisdom in the way of worth...who was it?

No, you cannot decide what everything is worth, because it's not up to you.
Who are you talking to?


Anyway...imagine this...
I have a corn farm. I grow enough corn for 3 persons, including myself. You have a pig farm. You only raise enough pigs for half a person. You'll starve before the end of the year. Now, I could survive off my corn alone, or I could trade you 1 share of my corn for your half share of pig. You have enough food to survive the year, but your diet isn't as varied and isn't as appealing as my diet is, and not only that, I have a power over you because I could have chosen not to share any of my corn with you. I could have let you died and then attempted taking over your pig farming along with my corn farming. While this may or may not be applicable to any situation we're talking about in this thread, it is an example of how the elimination of currency does not mean the same thing as the elimination of greed and power.

Communism can't work with any amount of corruptability...
With a police force, you've got a group of people running around telling everyone else to get back into their place and do their work. You move more toward Soviet-style communism...You don't have to have dictatorship with communism. You can have communism and let people decide if they work or not, but if they don't, they got nothing to eat. Is that fair?

The faults of communism aren't in its "corruptibility", that is irrelevant, any government is corruptible. The faults of communism are in its purported attempt at the destruction of the classes.
This is true, communism will not destroy the classes. Still it is more just.

The problem here is that you are trying to place worth on work. Capitalism allows the free natural market forces to decide the worth of things, it allows human nature to decide what is wanted and what is not. You seem to want to have everyone abide by your values and ideas of worth; who put you up there on your high and mighty pedistole and said that you had almighty wisdom in the way of worth...who was it?

No, you cannot decide what everything is worth, because it's not up to you.

a good point poeple should not able to decide the worth of things and that is exactly what capitalism does it allows the corporation to set the price of an object considering what THEY want it to be worth or are a pair of shoes worth in materials and labour 200+ for a nike and do you believe XP is value for money when brought? competion doesnt always mean low price

Who are you talking to?
I was responding to Psylos.

Well I don't agree. Capitalism rewards people according to their capital.
You may argue that you get capital by work, but even in that case this is not just. Because if someone gets a part of his reward from his capital, it means another man is working for this capital, which means another man gets a lower reward than deserved.
No one said capitalism is perfect. Capitalists are realists and realize capitalism isn't perfect. Communists are idealists and fail to realize just how impossible a communistic world really would be. Either way, communism does not reward a person justly for his work. Especially when compared to capitalism.

Capitalism and communism both have their places. If a society has way too many people for the resources it has, it needs to be communist or everybody starves. If a country has way too many resources for the people it has, it needs to be capitalist or the resources go unutilized.

Take a look at the United States and China. China is overpopulated; if they became totally capitalist, no one would give a shit about the starving people in the street. Communism unites people because it protects them. The United States, on the other hand, could never have expanded and grown in power the way it has without high-powered capitalistic competition. For the longest time, we haven't had enough people to use up the bounty of resources here in this country (me obviously showing myself to be American here...).

Now here's the question: once the US gets too many people for its resources... then what happens?

a good point poeple should not able to decide the worth of things and that is exactly what capitalism does it allows the corporation to set the price of an object considering what THEY want it to be worth or are a pair of shoes worth in materials and labour 200+ for a nike and do you believe XP is value for money when brought? competion doesnt always mean low price
Do you understand the concepts of supply and demand? No? didn't think so. Supply and demand determines the worth of things, not corporations, unless they are cheating in which case competition watchdogs stop them.

Now don't get me wrong, corruption is a problem in capitalism too.

However, in capitalism, when corruption happens, the entire system doesn't crumble.
But corruption is more likely in Capitalism.

You don't have to have dictatorship with communism. You can have communism and let people decide if they work or not, but if they don't, they got nothing to eat. Is that fair?
It's fair, but how is this so far removed from capitalism? Except that in capitalism, there are socialist laws in place that ensure that everyone eats something and this is made possible because of capital that allows generous rich people to donate some of their money to charities.

I would like to introduce a philosophical aspect into this. If communism or capitalism is flawed in reality or ideology then it must be flawed in the other. Communism cannot be perfect or good in theory if it is not in reality, there must be a fault in its theory. It is a common misconception that the two must have different properties; if it is because the theory doesn't take into account particular factors then so be it, both the ideology and the practise is missing both therefore both are imperfect.

What is the theory of communism? Will the most intelligible one of you communists speak on behalf of communism and give it its basis.According to me it is putting the means of production in common.

But corruption is more likely in Capitalism.
More likely to happen maybe, but less likely to completely destroy the system...when corruption happens in communism, it would turn into Feudalism...which as we know, eventually developed into capitalism.

Capitalism and communism both have their places. If a society has way too many people for the resources it has, it needs to be communist or[...]enough people to use up the bounty of resources here in this country (me obviously showing myself to be American here...).

Now here's the question: once the US gets too many people for its resources... then what happens?
You sort of raised a good point. It depends on the people and the situation. I would detest living in a communist economy because I have a desire to out-do my fellow beings, but some people just want the status-quo, and good luck to them, I wish them well.

In short Capitalism is what is easy and Communism is what is right.
Capitalism relies on self while Communism relies on everyone.
Capitalism will always work at the expense of others.
True Communism has never really been tried and so we don't know if the people would all work together.
If you collected like minded people they could make communism work.
Capitalism is where the system uses people while communism is where the system is used.
There is no way to turn a Capitalism system round while a communist one relies on it's people to be the system and if capitalists are part of it then they make it collapse.
Socialism works and that is close to communism and could develop into communism.

It is sad to think that all people are lazy and are not good inside as this is not true. When people learn that money actually has no use out of context they will stop using it and work together and honestly is it better to be at the bottom of a capitalist system or a comrade in a communist one.

The problem here is that you are trying to place worth on work. Capitalism allows the free natural market forces to decide the worth of things, it allows human nature to decide what is wanted and what is not. You seem to want to have everyone abide by your values and ideas of worth; who put you up there on your high and mighty pedistole and said that you had almighty wisdom in the way of worth...who was it?

No, you cannot decide what everything is worth, because it's not up to you.
I think the best way to decide is democracy, not capital. Why should a fat ass decide for everybody what each person should get?

I think the best way to decide is democracy, not capital. Why should a fat ass decide for everybody what each person should get?
Essentially the prices of things is decided by democracy. The more people want of something the more expensive it becomes, the less vice versa. A "fat ass" - who you mysteriously keep inventing - doesn't and couldn't simply decide the prices of things without commiting financial suicide.

No, Capitalism was not invented by America, but the American form of Capitalism has mostly stayed the same since it was introduced.

If this were true, then meatpackers would still be able to use saltpeter and formaldehyde to disguise rotten meat (http://www.pww.org/past-weeks-1999/Remembering%20'Mother'%20Bloor.htm), there would still be child labor, there would be no minimum wage, overtime pay would not be mandatory, nor would there be unions.

In short Capitalism is what is easy and Communism is what is right.
Capitalism relies on self while Communism relies on everyone.
Capitalism will always work at the expense of others.
True Communism has never really been tried and so we don't know if the people would all work together.
If you collected like minded people they could make communism work.
Capitalism is where the system uses people while communism is where the system is used.
There is no way to turn a Capitalism system round while a communist one relies on it's people to be the system and if capitalists are part of it then they make it collapse.
Socialism works and that is close to communism and could develop into communism.

It is sad to think that all people are lazy and are not good inside as this is not true. When people learn that money actually has no use out of context they will stop using it and work together and honestly is it better to be at the bottom of a capitalist system or a comrade in a communist one.


for a toaster you make a dahm good point : )

Here is why I don't think communism will work.

I work at a movie theater. Basically everyone there gets paid the same. Well, aside from the managers and assistant mangers...

Not everyone does an equal amount of work. Most of the workers there slack of and just do enough to get by. I work hard. Why? Partly because of good work ethic, but it's a work ethic that I don't think I would have if it weren't for capitalism. Capitalism has taught me that with hard work, there's always another step to take. You can always get something better than what you have for yourself already. If we all grew up in a communist society, I would have no reason to prove to everyone that I am better than my fellow workers and whatever particular job I am assigned at the theater. I'd work at basically whatever level I would want to because, basically as long as I'm worked, I'd be living at the same quality of life.

It is sad to think that all people are lazy and are not good inside as this is not true. When people learn that money actually has no use out of context they will stop using it and work together and honestly is it better to be at the bottom of a capitalist system or a comrade in a communist one.
A queer assumption. What do you really mean by laziness? Capitalism per se has nothing to show over communism in the way of scientific breakthroughs - in the sense that they cannot claim them - but it certainly doesn't cause laziness; unless you have some mysterious definition of laziness.

The server is getting too slow and I'm tired.
All it comes down to is :
VOTE COMMUNIST.

It is sad to think that all people are lazy and are not good inside as this is not true. When people learn that money actually has no use out of context they will stop using it and work together and honestly is it better to be at the bottom of a capitalist system or a comrade in a communist one.
Being at the bottom of capitalism means you've got room to move up and improve things for yourself. Being a comrade means no matter what you do, you're stuck in the same thing.

Here is why I don't think communism will work.

I work at a movie theater. Basically everyone there gets paid the same. Well, aside from the managers and assistant mangers...

Not everyone does an equal amount of work. Most of the workers there slack of and just do enough to get by. I work hard. Why? Partly because of good work ethic, but it's a work ethic that I don't think I would have if it weren't for capitalism. Capitalism has taught me that with hard work, there's always another step to take. You can always get something better than what you have for yourself already. If we all grew up in a communist society, I would have no reason to prove to everyone that I am better than my fellow workers and whatever particular job I am assigned at the theater. I'd work at basically whatever level I would want to because, basically as long as I'm worked, I'd be living at the same quality of life.You're underpaid man. You don't own your theatre, you pay a tax to the owner when you work there. You should get your just reward by ....
VOTING COMMUNIST.

The key to communism is the idea of "comradeship" and a sense of work ethic. Indeed if this were possible then communism would be the best option, but only a minority really believe in comradeship. The sense of equality cannot be erased because the classes will never be destroyed and therefore a middle-class man will resent calling a lower class man his comrade. I've said it once, I'll say it again, communism will never destroy the class system and that is its chief defect. No one communist has addressed this yet - indeed, one has admitted it.

I agree that it is sad that people are so lazy. And it is sad that people are greedy, too. But there's an old principle I once heard...

...Might makes right.

It's not pretty, but if I have the power to take away from people, I'm probably gonna do it... 'cause it's in my best interest. Capitalism doesn't require any social engineering to go along with it; Communism has to be a engineered system.

You're underpaid man. You don't own your theatre, you pay a tax to the owner when you work there. You should get your just reward by ....
VOTING COMMUNIST.
That's funny. I don't feel underpaid. They sometimes pay me for 8 hours of work when in actuality I only worked about an hour to two hours of the time I was there. The fact that they pay me the same when business is slow as they do when it's really busy means that they're probably overpaying me. Plus, I don't plan on sitting at the bottom of a capitalist society all my life. Unlike you communists, who bitch about getting underpaid and demand a revolution, I work hard to prove my worth so I can move up in society and make something of myself.

Capitalism doesn't require any social engineering to go along with it; Communism has to be a engineered system.
They don't call one "planned" and the other "laissez-faire" for nothing.

I agree that it is sad that people are so lazy. And it is sad that people are greedy, too. But there's an old principle I once heard...

...Might makes right.

It's not pretty, but if I have the power to take away from people, I'm probably gonna do it... 'cause it's in my best interest. Capitalism doesn't require any social engineering to go along with it; Communism has to be a engineered system.
Good points.

While I agree with most of the original points made, I must point out a few imperfections in your theory.

What you described isn't Communism, It's Marxism. Communism is an ideal that however noble in it's ideals, does not transfer to reality. Marxism is the reality that we have when the attempt at Communism failed.

Just because Communism/Marxism, (whatever you want to call it), does not work, that does not prove your title claim that Capitalism works. If this was so, we would not find ourselves in the situation whereby many many people live on or below the poverty line, in societies that we would class as Capitalistic.

To sum up. Communism is a noble idea that fails miserably in the form of Marxism when put into practice.

Capitalism is just a deceiptful way for governments to keep large numbers of people happy(ish), without ever actually giving them an opportunity to affect their lives, or as becoming more apparent, the lives of others more needy.

Capitalism doesn't require any social engineering to go along with it; Communism has to be a engineered system.

Hello! Did you go to an egalitarian school or were you expected to obey your "superiors"? School is social engineering.

Being at the bottom of capitalism means you've got room to move up and improve things for yourself. Being a comrade means no matter what you do, you're stuck in the same thing.

But if you are stuck at the bottom and have no education, no hope, who's gonna help you? Not the state, not the private sector, no one. Soon you commit crime and get stuck in a prison as this is a capitalist solution. Remove the useless people and even use them for work! In communism the state will give you an education, help you find a job and be content for as the nation grows and does well, the people grow with it and are becoming "richer" but in a good way. Comrades make life better for everyone and you are selfless. Lazy people could be shamed to work and shunned from society anyway :) and may realise that if they work then they are becoming "rich".
Promotion does not always involve money and power...

The key to communism is the idea of "comradeship" and a sense of work ethic. Indeed if this were possible then communism would be the best option, but only a minority really believe in comradeship. The sense of equality cannot be erased because the classes will never be destroyed and therefore a middle-class man will resent calling a lower class man his comrade. I've said it once, I'll say it again, communism will never destroy the class system and that is its chief defect. No one communist has addressed this yet - indeed, one has admitted it.

hmmm off the top of my create a system where on knows what class other where before or totally bankrupt each class so they are all lower class although inplementaion would be difficult perhaps have some thing like the army where everyone is a recruit so to speak and equal backgrounds irrelivent these are fairly quick thought ideas hopefully it will get someone thinking

hmmm off the top of my create a system where on knows what class other where before or totally bankrupt each class so they are all lower class although inplementaion would be difficult perhaps have some thing like the army where everyone is a recruit so to speak and equal backgrounds irrelivent these are fairly quick thought ideas hopefully it will get someone thinking
What do you propose to do when these people start working? The class system will be re-born. Plus people will carry forward their old class habits whether you tell everyone they are lower-class or not - perhaps brainwashing will work.

But if you are stuck at the bottom and have no education, no hope, who's gonna help you? Not the state, not the private sector, no one. Soon you commit crime and get stuck in a prison as this is a capitalist solution. Remove the useless people and even use them for work! In communism the state will give you an education, help you find a job and be content for as the nation grows and does well, the people grow with it and are becoming "richer" but in a good way. Comrades make life better for everyone and you are selfless. Lazy people could be shamed to work and shunned from society anyway :) and may realise that if they work then they are becoming "rich".
Promotion does not always involve money and power...
I don't understand how one could be "stuck at the bottom" of capitalism...

Hello! Did you go to an egalitarian school or were you expected to obey your "superiors"? School is social engineering.

Excellent point! Oh, I know that more than most-- I'm a high school teacher. It's actually kind of scary how much of school is all about reinforcing capitalist skills. Fundraisers? Working on "business skills" in the classroom? It's absolutely social engineering.

So why would our society need social engineering? Because we aren't just capitalist. Pure capitalism is a volitile system-- anybody could make a lot of money and upset the fat cats. So we engineer people to be the lower rungs, build them to be the robots, the workers in factories.

I don't understand how one could be "stuck at the bottom" of capitalism...

Look out on the streets, see the people? See them with no education, no familly, being turned away fromjobs cause they can't afford new clothes to impress? Well they are at the bottom and there are others who are caught in downsizing and are not gonna get up that ladder. Look around and see, it's out there

So why would our society need social engineering? Because we aren't just capitalist. Pure capitalism is a volitile system-- anybody could make a lot of money and upset the fat cats. So we engineer people to be the lower rungs, build them to be the robots, the workers in factories.
I can't speak for America, but personally, my school's motto is "Valuing Success for All" and we're taught business skills, IT skills et cetera that will help us in a capitalist world...yet, I'm not at the lower rungs. If I play it out right, which isn't hard, I'll head straight into the city and be earning 60 thousand a year before too long.

Firstly, a quick one.You know nothing of politics of you think Britains' head of state should be "gotten rid of". The Royals are a bunch of inbred parasites who are only where they are because of conquest of land from the people by their ancestors and who their ancestors had sex with. They are the figureheads of the landed gentry and should be abolished pronto. Anyone who supports them has no right to claim they believe in either democracy or equality. (That is merely my opinion. It should not be considered fact as I haven't provided evidence to back it up).Yes, Eric Blair did become hostile to the Communist or Stalinist party of the time.Yep, I said that. He opposed what becomes of a communist society. At first, it works as an ideal society, then disentigrates quite quickly into a totalitarian dictatorship. I oppose this, and so did he. I doubt that after he saw what happened to the USSR he still supported Communism. And anyway, the Spanish Civil War came before 1984 was published. Please provide some proof that Orwell believed communism would automatically lead to a totalitarian dictatorship. I think you're at best ignorant about Orwell's politics (have you read Homage to Catalonia and Down and Out in Paris and London?) and at worst deliberately dishonest.


No, I do not misrepresent Animal Farm. You say that the farmers are the representitives of capitalism. I disagree with you here. Animal Farm is an allegory of the Russian Revolution. Who do the pigs and the rest of the farm animals represent, in comparison to the russian revolution? They represent the Bolsheviks, the communists, the Leninists. Who is Snowball? Lenin. Who is Napolean? Stalin. Stalin forces Lenin and all the Leninist ideas and Lenin loyalists away when he takes power. So does Napolean.
Now, in the Russian Revolution, who do the communists revolt from? The Czar's, the White Army, the Nobles, the Monarchists. Who do the farm animals revolt from? The men. So, the men represent the Monarchists. And later in the book, what happens to the pigs? They turn into men. So, what does this represent in the Russian Revolution? The people who broke away from the Monarchists who ran a dictatorship, the same people (like Stalin) become the Monarchists running a dictatorship, so the new leader is the same as the old leader. No, it is obvious that Capitalists are not represented at all in Animal Farm.Snowball is blatantly Trotsky not Lenin. Look at the historical parallels. Trotsky was expelled from Russia by Stalin. Snowball is expelled from the farm by Napolean. Trotsky was murdered by the Russian Secret police in Mexico. Snowball is murdered by Napolean's private army of dogs. In my view this is one of the main weaknesses of the book. Orwell's hatred for Stalin blinded him to the fact that Trotsky was just as dictorial. However, how do you reconcile your view that Orwell hated all things communist with the sympathetic portrayal of the Snowball character?

Now, having shown your opinion that Snowball was Lenin to be factually incorrect I move on to your claim that the farmers do not in anyway represent capitalism. How do you explain Old Boxer's comments on the farmers that "Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough , he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving and the rest he keeps for himself." Does that not sound to you like a typical Marxist criticism of the ruling class? You also have to explain why one of the scathing criticisms in the book is against Napolean for his secret deals with Frederick and Pilkington- for example the deal with Pilkington for timber. And what do you think is the historical parallel for the comment by Pilkington that "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." To me that is an obvious analogy for the normalisation of the relationship between Stalin and the West after the Second World War. For us to accept your analysis that the farmers do not represent capitalism we need to accept that either a)there was some secret deal pre the Russian Revolution between the Bolsheviks and the forces of the Tzar. I'm not aware of any historical evidence for this, are you? Or b) that despite the fact that every other event in the book has a direct historical parallel, this event was entirely made up by Orwell. That really isn't a very credible answer.


OK, if what you say is true, if the Capitalists were truly the evil ones in 1984, then lets see what happened.Not what I said. I said that 1984 saw Stalinism, fascism and capitalism as equally tolitarian regimes. Has the UK become anything like Oceania in 1984? No. Has the USA? No. But has the USSR? Yes! The USSR did become the awful society in 1984. Yes to all three. Allow me to demonstrate. The KGB, secret police, The CIA/FBI (US). MI5/MI6 (UK)Gulags, The introduction of internment without trial in Northern Ireland (UK), the internment without trial of Japanese citizens in the Second World War and Gutanemo Bay (US)of torture,Coalition troops torturing Iraqis (Both) people swept away in the middle of the night because they opposed the government, those things are in 1984 and the USSR. If what you say is true, that the evil in 1984 was Capitalism, then George Orwell was wrong.[/quote]No, the evil in 1984 was all three systems. You are right that Oceania was Stalinism. But what do you think Eurasia and Eastasia represent?

Allright, Orwell opposed Communism, he opposed the hell communism turns out to be, so he wrote Animal Farm at a time when many thinkers and intellectuals in Europe and the US did not think Communism was all that bad. They had not seen into what really happens when a Communistic society disentegrates into Stalin's Russia. No, he opposed Stalinism and capitalism as I have demonstrated clearly with references to the texts. Then, to further enforce this message, he wrote 1984 to show what it is really like in a the dictatorship that comes out of failed communism, to try and discourage a communist movement in the UK or any other country. He thought if people knew what happens to a communist government, they would be discouraged to try to set up one. It doesen't matter how many times you repeat something if you provide no evidence to back up your claims.

Faeries live at the bottom of my garden.
Faeries live at the bottom of my garden.
Faeries live at the bottom of my garden.
Faeries live at the bottom of my garden.
Faeries live at the bottom of my garden.

See?He was right,Yes he was. Capitalism and Stalinism are both reprehensible systems and the USA, the UK, and many other western European nations did not fall into the communist trap. And if you need any other information, talk to anyone that lived in Poland or anywhere else in Eastern Europe during the Warsaw Pact years.Strawman. Back up your claims about communism with reference to non-Stalinist/Leninist movements. Either the Paris Commune or POUM will be fine.

I can't speak for America, but personally, my school's motto is "Valuing Success for All" and we're taught business skills, IT skills et cetera that will help us in a capitalist world...yet, I'm not at the lower rungs. If I play it out right, which isn't hard, I'll head straight into the city and be earning 60 thousand a year before too long.

Really? Well you are lucky. In Britan the lower rung system has not evolved fully yet, we are lucky, but give it time and you way find that you are expendible and could be downsized, forced to work twice as hard and then the company close that site and you are jobless with no money. This does happen, it is real. You may get stuck like that with many others and may think communist thoughts of equality.

Firstly, a quick one.The Royals are a bunch of inbred parasites who are only where they are because of conquest of land from the people by their ancestors and who their ancestors had sex with. They are the figureheads of the landed gentry and should be abolished pronto. Anyone who supports them has no right to claim they believe in either democracy or equality. (That is merely my opinion. It should not be considered fact as I haven't provided evidence to back it up).
Explain how you would plan on removing THE HEAD OF STATE.

Really? Well you are lucky. In Britan the lower rung system has not evolved fully yet, we are lucky, but give it time and you way find that you are expendible and could be downsized, forced to work twice as hard and then the company close that site and you are jobless with no money. This does happen, it is real. You may get stuck like that with many others and may think communist thoughts of equality.
Until that day I shall gladly bask in the glory of being middle-class; whilst you glibly moan.

I wish those lower class fools would stop bitching and strike up the revolution already.

They will never revolt, they don't know why or how. Only various intellectuals want or understand communism, the majority of the proletariat wouldn't understand communism and thus they just get on with life in the capitalist world.

Until that day I shall gladly bask in the glory of being middle-class; whilst you glibly moan.

Well, thing is, I'm middle class as well but I am not ignoring what is happening.

I wish those lower class fools would stop bitching and strike up the revolution already.

Give them time, the russian revolution took a hell of a long time before the people removed Nicholas II

Give them time, the russian revolution took a hell of a long time before the people removed Nicholas II
I hope it happens soon so that we can do to them what the North did to the South.

They will never revolt, they don't know why or how. Only various intellectuals want or understand communism, the majority of the proletariat wouldn't understand communism and thus they just get on with life in the capitalist world.

So most revolts really end up either being the Peasants' Revolt from the 1300s in England (where the peasants got their asses handed to them on a platter 'cause they had no weapons and no training) or a grim parody of the barricade scene from Les Miserables.

Explain how you would plan on removing THE HEAD OF STATE.Simple. Just abolish it. We don't have a legally binding constitution like the US do so it's not difficult.
I wish those lower class fools would stop bitching and strike up the revolution already.While it's not revolution some of us have already started fighting for our interests. Check out the link I gave earlier.

Simple. Just abolish it. We don't have a legally binding constitution like the US do so it's not difficult.
The Royal Prerogative is a pretty big obstacle to removing the Monarchy, don't you think?

Well, thing is, I'm middle class as well but I am not ignoring what is happening.
We're merely brushing each other with feathers until one of us gives in.

We're merely brushing each other with feathers until one of us gives in.

That's true, sadly. This is what happens when two sides debate about two perfectly sound ideas which have pros and cons, but to one person a con is a pro.

The Royal Prerogative is a pretty big obstacle to removing the Monarchy, don't you think?
Not an insurrmountable (sp?) one. There is naturally precedent if we look back to the English Civil War.

Not an insurrmountable (sp?) one. There is naturally precedent if we look back to the English Civil War.
That was different. The King had to be held to account, but there is no lawful reason to go to war against the Monarchy. Besides if we did it would cause a constitutional crisis because parliament, the prime minister et cetera, act in the name of the crown when deploying the army. How can they act in the name of the crown against the crown?

It is impossible to get passed the Royal Prerogative because it places the head of state above the law. There is no lawful way of removing the Monarchy.

And besides, taking precedent from Oliver Cromwell isn't really a wise thing to do in any case.

And besides, taking precedent from Oliver Cromwell isn't really a wise thing to do in any case.
True, the Protectorate made some wacky laws.

...did you read all my posts?

I was arguing the idealism or capitalism because the only thing that communists ever present is the ideal version of communism, which when compared to the real version of capitalism, looks excellent...

Yes, I did you read them, but you are mistaken if you think that my arguments against capitalism are arguments for either socialism or communism. I'm neither a capitalist, socialist, or communist, since ideally, I think any of them could work, but realistically, I think they all are liable to abuses in their "pure" form. Thus, I do not espouse any of them. As long as people are working for the common good, then the economic system becomes immaterial.

ALl I can say is I am glad to see some people know there are problems with the way society is today. I believe many of the ideas of pure communism are the way to go in the future though, I don't beleive the world is ready to be like that yet, people are still o inclined to look out for no. 1. In the future I feel the world will turn to a system more close to communism or to be specific Marxism, I am just happy to see that people right now are at least open to the idea many people I have ever said this too think communism is a horrible thing just because of many of the problems in the past. I doubt we will ever live to see it but one day the world with come together and be equals with eachother and realize how much better it is when they work for the common good instead of their own personal good. But like I said i dobut any of us will ever live to see that.

That was different. The King had to be held to account, but there is no lawful reason to go to war against the Monarchy. Besides if we did it would cause a constitutional crisis because parliament, the prime minister et cetera, act in the name of the crown when deploying the army. How can they act in the name of the crown against the crown?

It is impossible to get passed the Royal Prerogative because it places the head of state above the law. There is no lawful way of removing the Monarchy.I agree that it would no longer need to come to that. While, as you correctly say, the Queen's powers are not purely ceremonial (I'm highly impressed if you're a US citizen by the way, most UK citizens don't have such an accurate picture of constititional law) neither are we talking about the situation of the monarch having absolute power as we were in Cromwell's time. If the majority of the royal's subjects no longer wish to be ruled, the law can always be changed. In a dispute between the mandate of the people and the Royal Prerogative, there's more of us. ;)

And besides, taking precedent from Oliver Cromwell isn't really a wise thing to do in any caseAbsolutely. I'm certainly not planning to abolish Christmas, :D I'm just pointing out that there is a precedent in English history, not praising Cromwell.

I believe many of the ideas of pure communism are the way to go in the future though, I don't beleive the world is ready to be like that yet, people are still o inclined to look out for no. 1. In the future I feel the world will turn to a system more close to communism or to be specific Marxism...

If the world's population continues to drive up and up and up, there's a much better chance of this happening (or perhaps "much more likely," if you don't like the word "better" used in this case). Because when people start starving, they're much less likely to accept a system which doesn't take care of them. At first it may be easy to put them down... but it's an inevitability.

Well, that is unless there's a huge apocalypse-style war. That would also even out the resources/people curve. But I'm not really a big fan of that option either.

If the majority of the royal's subjects no longer wish to be ruled, the law can always be changed. In a dispute between the mandate of the people and the Royal Prerogative, there's more of us. ;)

I'm English by the way - sorry to dissapoint you, I can pretend to be American though.

I don't know whether democracy applies to the monarchy, or are you suggesting anarchy? I still can't see a lawful way of removing the monarchy. How do you remove something lawfully if it is above the law? The only way I can think of is to do what Cromwell to did and that is to get the monarchy to "agree" to have their powers removed - without the war obviously.

I'm English by the way - sorry to dissapoint you, I can pretend to be American though.Slightly less impressive, but still pretty damn knowledgable, ;)

I don't know whether democracy applies to the monarchy, or are you suggesting anarchy? I still can't see a lawful way of removing the monarchy. How do you remove something lawfully if it is above the law? The only way I can think of is to do what Cromwell to did and that is to get the monarchy to "agree" to have their powers removed - without the war obviously.That's pretty much what I'm advocating. I'm not suggesting anarchy so much as direct democracy. And it's impossible to rule a people who refuse to be ruled.

That's pretty much what I'm advocating. I'm not suggesting anarchy so much as direct democracy. And it's impossible to rule a people who refuse to be ruled.

I suppose you can always try.

:D

That's pretty much what I'm advocating. I'm not suggesting anarchy so much as direct democracy. And it's impossible to rule a people who refuse to be ruled.

Is there capitalism? If not, then it is anarchism.

Here is why I don't think communism will work.

I work at a movie theater. Basically everyone there gets paid the same.... Not everyone does an equal amount of work. Most of the workers there slack of and just do enough to get by. I work hard. Why? Partly because of good work ethic, but it's a work ethic that I don't think I would have if it weren't for capitalism.... If we all grew up in a communist society, I would have no reason to prove to everyone that I am better than my fellow workers and whatever particular job I am assigned at the theater. I'd work at basically whatever level I would want to because, basically as long as I'm worked, I'd be living at the same quality of life.

I fail to see how your work ethic is connected to capitalism, especially since, by your own admission, "everyone there gets paid the same" and your (lazier) co-workers seem to be "work[ing] at basically whatever level [they] would want to." If you're not making more than your co-workers, then it would seem that your motive to work harder than them comes from self-motivation, rather than outside forces. It's not that I'm critizing your work ethic (in fact, I think the possession of one is rather commendable), but rather questioning whether it is dependent on the existence of a capitalist society.

Is there capitalism? If not, then it is anarchism.
No because I a) don't believe the state will disappear overnight and b)insist on the importance of a class analysis. It's libretarian (non Leninist) Marxism.

Farmer Brown is a lazy guy, he is "naturally" lazy, and he does not enjoy working.

Capitalism gives you the incentive to move up in the world. You work for your own good, so you can stay alive, no one forces you to work. You work for yourself, and you are not doing it reluctantly. Capitalism feeds off the emotions of ambition and pride and greed and the hope for a better future. You become rich, you become happy. Or, you become comfortable, so you can die happy. The ones who do not work, or work lazily, fall behind. But now, people have incentive to work, and they do so. The economy flourishes, and the nation is stable.

Capitalism works in the real world, Communism works in other worlds, without human emotions.


I am no supporter of anarch-Communism cuz it's just plain ridiculous.

However, it is clear that you have never read Marx. Marx points out that few men are born "naturally" lazy. Thorstein Veblen also adds to this theory.

This is how society works in capitalism: You pick something you like for example, nursing. You get paid to do what you like, and in return you pay others so that you can survive in the capitalist economy. The problem is then that through division of labor your job becomes very repetitive and boring. You signed up to be a nurse, but you end up devoting 80% of your time to paper work. Because medicine its about medicine, its about the bottom line, as is everything working toward capitalistic goals.

Humans are "naturally" industrious and productive. Sloth may enter in to our lives. But no one sits around and does nothing, that's boring and extremely unsatisfying.

Capitalists are "naturally" lazy, they see a point at which they can live off the fruit of others while doing nothing. True capitalists also make up a very small class in the United States... It's inherent in capitalism. Now this shows us, that few men are lazy, and most are working fellows. Lazy people trying to live off the fruit of the others do not make up labor unions working for socialist goals... Lazy people sit and watch free money come to them in the form of dividends.

Put simply, capitalism enables the lazy, to live off of the productivity of the industriousness.

Now to end this, I will cite Marx.

"It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital."

I fail to see how your work ethic is connected to capitalism, especially since, by your own admission, "everyone there gets paid the same" and your (lazier) co-workers seem to be "work[ing] at basically whatever level [they] would want to." If you're not making more than your co-workers, then it would seem that your motive to work harder than them comes from self-motivation, rather than outside forces. It's not that I'm critizing your work ethic (in fact, I think the possession of one is rather commendable), but rather questioning whether it is dependent on the existence of a capitalist society.
In a communist nation there are no pay raises. the hard he works the more he gets(in theory). Or he'll be the last person laid off.

_Susa_, your idea of capitalism is not realistic. It assumes that everyone starts of at an equal place, like in a race. But in reality this is not so. Communism in its pure form isn't very realistic, but pure Capitalism just creates horrific social/economic inequality. I don't think that's good.

_Susa_, your idea of capitalism is not realistic. It assumes that everyone starts of at an equal place, like in a race. But in reality this is not so. Communism in its pure form isn't very realistic, but pure Capitalism just creates horrific social/economic inequality. I don't think that's good.
As I have said before, in America, we regulate Capitalism, and do not let it run wild. Ever heard of Welfare? Social Security? Pensions? Homeless Shelters? Free Public Education? Have you?

Why Communism does not work: A short essay, by the man behind _Susa_

"Communism only works in heaven, where they don't need it, and hell, where they already have it" -Ronald Reagan.
Now, Letila, I know you will say Reagan is just referring to the Marxist Authoratative government stage of communism, where they truly never got to communism. I respect your views, and I think in a Utopian society, in a world without human emotions, your view of communism would work. I honestly think it would. But anarcho-communism will never, ever, ever, work in this world. If it could work, I would support it, because it seems like the best way to live in a perfect world. But our world is not perfect. Anarcho communism does not work, and here is why.

Hypothetical Situation in a Communist Nation: Farmer Jones, Farmer Smith, and Farmer Brown all work on a communal farm together. Now, for the first few days, everything goes smoothly, each man working equal to the others. But, as I said earlier, human emotions play into communism, and ultimately will make it fail. Farmer Brown is a lazy guy, he is naturally lazy, and he does not enjoy working. So, he decides to stop working. Totally. Because anyway, everybody shares everything, so he will still have all he needs to live, food, shelter etc. So now Farmer Brown is not working on the farm. He just sits around and feeds off the work of Farmer Jones and Farmer Smith. This angers Farmer Jones. He decides, well if Farmer Brown aint working, then sure as hell I aint working, and I will still get food and shelter and etc. because we all share. Soon after Farmer Jones quits working, Farmer Smith follows suit. Other workers take cues from the farmers, and quit working. They dont care about gaining a reputation for sharing, even if you are the best sharer, you are treated the same as everybody else, you cannot become rich. So now, no one has any incentive to work, and since there are no social classes, you cannot move up in the world. So now, the economy of this nation is ruined as more workers just stop working every day. Then what happens? How do we get these men to work again? Well, the USSR showed us how. Gulags. Torture. Fear. Force them to work. Now, they work, but they are forced to do it, or they will get killed. Productivity drops, because people are working, but only reluctantly. The system is ruined.

Capitalism gives you the incentive to move up in the world. You work for your own good, so you can stay alive, no one forces you to work. You work for yourself, and you are not doing it reluctantly. Capitalism feeds off the emotions of ambition and pride and greed and the hope for a better future. You become rich, you become happy. Or, you become comfortable, so you can die happy. The ones who do not work, or work lazily, fall behind. But now, people have incentive to work, and they do so. The economy flourishes, and the nation is stable.

Capitalism works in the real world, Communism works in other worlds, without human emotions.



I posted this in one of Letilas threads, so you might recognize it.

I agree with this 100%.

Thank you.

I agree with this 100%.
And what about the arguments and counterarguments that have followed it? Or have you only read the first post on this thread?

@_Susa_: I've started a thread specifically about Orwell, because I didn't want it to feel to you like I was hijacking this one.

@_Susa_: I've started a thread specifically about Orwell, because I didn't want it to feel to you like I was hijacking this one.
That is fine. You werent hijacking though, it was all in the course of debate.

Why Communism does not work: A short essay, by the man behind _Susa_

"Communism only works in heaven, where they don't need it, and hell, where they already have it" -Ronald Reagan.
Now, Letila, I know you will say Reagan is just referring to the Marxist Authoratative government stage of communism, where they truly never got to communism. I respect your views, and I think in a Utopian society, in a world without human emotions, your view of communism would work. I honestly think it would. But anarcho-communism will never, ever, ever, work in this world. If it could work, I would support it, because it seems like the best way to live in a perfect world. But our world is not perfect. Anarcho communism does not work, and here is why.

Hypothetical Situation in a Communist Nation: Farmer Jones, Farmer Smith, and Farmer Brown all work on a communal farm together. Now, for the first few days, everything goes smoothly, each man working equal to the others. But, as I said earlier, human emotions play into communism, and ultimately will make it fail. Farmer Brown is a lazy guy, he is naturally lazy, and he does not enjoy working. So, he decides to stop working. Totally. Because anyway, everybody shares everything, so he will still have all he needs to live, food, shelter etc. So now Farmer Brown is not working on the farm. He just sits around and feeds off the work of Farmer Jones and Farmer Smith. This angers Farmer Jones. He decides, well if Farmer Brown aint working, then sure as hell I aint working, and I will still get food and shelter and etc. because we all share. Soon after Farmer Jones quits working, Farmer Smith follows suit. Other workers take cues from the farmers, and quit working. They dont care about gaining a reputation for sharing, even if you are the best sharer, you are treated the same as everybody else, you cannot become rich. So now, no one has any incentive to work, and since there are no social classes, you cannot move up in the world. So now, the economy of this nation is ruined as more workers just stop working every day. Then what happens? How do we get these men to work again? Well, the USSR showed us how. Gulags. Torture. Fear. Force them to work. Now, they work, but they are forced to do it, or they will get killed. Productivity drops, because people are working, but only reluctantly. The system is ruined.

Capitalism gives you the incentive to move up in the world. You work for your own good, so you can stay alive, no one forces you to work. You work for yourself, and you are not doing it reluctantly. Capitalism feeds off the emotions of ambition and pride and greed and the hope for a better future. You become rich, you become happy. Or, you become comfortable, so you can die happy. The ones who do not work, or work lazily, fall behind. But now, people have incentive to work, and they do so. The economy flourishes, and the nation is stable.

Capitalism works in the real world, Communism works in other worlds, without human emotions.



I posted this in one of Letilas threads, so you might recognize it.

very well put. communism pulls at the heart but any one that has been in the job market for any real time knows that there are enough lazy people that it just cant work

_Susa_, your idea of capitalism is not realistic. It assumes that everyone starts of at an equal place, like in a race. But in reality this is not so. Communism in its pure form isn't very realistic, but pure Capitalism just creates horrific social/economic inequality. I don't think that's good.
agreed pure capitalism is not good. you will allways need some social programs. in my opion a policy of 90% capitalism and 10% communisum to keep the capitalist honest is probly best

--the flaw is that there are things like greed which makes companies' sole interest the capital, or the reward (like what you describe in what you think of ideal capitalism) and that there are also people who inherit large sums of money just by being the child of a hard worker.
Your pretenses at a critique nonwithstanding, most money is made by folks who shuffle papers around without actually producing, inventing or administering anything.

Stock brokers study the market and look for oppurtinities to earn a profit. Their goal may be to earn a profit (so they can afford to live), but what they accomplish is far greater. By knowing (from lots of good experience) what types of companies will do good and bad and how those different companies will be effected by international incidents and such, the stock broker moves his money around to make the best profit, but in doing so, he basically funds the companies which he believes will do the best, making that company do even better, giving it the chance to hire more people or increase their employees' salaries. The evilness of greed that inspires them to earn something helps society, whether or not you like it.
We're not talking about the same thing. The analyst is useful and deserves pay. The capitalist doesn't. One can be both and receive double pay whereas he deserves just one. By receiving double pay, he makes two other people receive half their deserved pay. This is why some people in the world are working 15 hours a day for less than $1, instead, the owner of the factory is receiving their pay. Pay the analyst, but don't pay the capital, give a full pay to the worker instead (including to the analyst).

The problem here is that you are trying to place worth on work. Capitalism allows the free natural market forces to decide the worth of things, it allows human nature to decide what is wanted and what is not. You seem to want to have everyone abide by your values and ideas of worth; who put you up there on your high and mighty pedistole and said that you had almighty wisdom in the way of worth...who was it?

No, you cannot decide what everything is worth, because it's not up to you.
No the market force are setting the prices, not me. Capitalism, however, tackles the market forces.

It's fair, but how is this so far removed from capitalism? Except that in capitalism, there are socialist laws in place that ensure that everyone eats something and this is made possible because of capital that allows generous rich people to donate some of their money to charities.
This is irrelevant. You can have social comunism as well.
However, let's note that the money the capitalist donates is the money he stole from the workers. Therefore he is robbing paul to donate to john.

More likely to happen maybe, but less likely to completely destroy the system...when corruption happens in communism, it would turn into Feudalism...which as we know, eventually developed into capitalism.
On the other hand, capitalism is a corrupted system from the start.

You sort of raised a good point. It depends on the people and the situation. I would detest living in a communist economy because I have a desire to out-do my fellow beings, but some people just want the status-quo, and good luck to them, I wish them well.Oh you mean you want slaves? Sorry, but the slaves will revolt, sooner or later.

The key to communism is the idea of "comradeship" and a sense of work ethic. Indeed if this were possible then communism would be the best option, but only a minority really believe in comradeship. The sense of equality cannot be erased because the classes will never be destroyed and therefore a middle-class man will resent calling a lower class man his comrade. I've said it once, I'll say it again, communism will never destroy the class system and that is its chief defect. No one communist has addressed this yet - indeed, one has admitted it.
Communism makes the bourgeoisy disappear, but it is not enough to end the class system.
Democratic communism on the other hand is a no class system.

That's funny. I don't feel underpaid. They sometimes pay me for 8 hours of work when in actuality I only worked about an hour to two hours of the time I was there. The fact that they pay me the same when business is slow as they do when it's really busy means that they're probably overpaying me. Plus, I don't plan on sitting at the bottom of a capitalist society all my life. Unlike you communists, who bitch about getting underpaid and demand a revolution, I work hard to prove my worth so I can move up in society and make something of myself.
You are blind then.
You are underpaid, this is a fact. While the owner of the theater takes a tax from you, you don't have it and if you don't have it, although you deserve it, it means you are underpaid.

I don't understand how one could be "stuck at the bottom" of capitalism...
That's because you're a bourgeois.

I wish those lower class fools would stop bitching and strike up the revolution already.
Would you enjoy being in the tower when the planes are crashing? The revolution is taking place in many parts of the world. Turn on the TV man. It's war everywhere.

They will never revolt, they don't know why or how. Only various intellectuals want or understand communism, the majority of the proletariat wouldn't understand communism and thus they just get on with life in the capitalist world.
Indeed many people don't understand communism. We have to educate the masses or the war will continue until the end of time.

As I have said before, in America, we regulate Capitalism, and do not let it run wild. Ever heard of Welfare? Social Security? Pensions? Homeless Shelters? Free Public Education? Have you?The US works because there are slaves around the world to work for it.

agreed pure capitalism is not good. you will allways need some social programs. in my opion a policy of 90% capitalism and 10% communisum to keep the capitalist honest is probly best
And let's put 4% sugar, a small slice of orange and some pepper maybe...
What about social democratic communism? What is the use of capitalism?

No the market force are setting the prices, not me. Capitalism, however, tackles the market forces.
Whereas socialism and communism do what exactly? Destroy the free-market system? Besides, you're still thinking of capitalism as being the powerful versus the weak. You forget the middle-classes. If a board of directors don't sell their product at an affordable price then no one will buy it. I agree that some things are too expensive, but people are so righteous now-a-days that they forget how much we really have now for so little. Christ man, a car is supposed to be a luxury, further education a god-send, and a 4-bedroom house a miracle.

Only the rich and the well-off should be able to afford these things. The basic economic problem is limited resources and unlimited wants. This means that not everyone can have everything, and the only way to distribute things fairly is with a free-market price mechanism. The poor get the basics: food, shelter et cetera, and the rich get the luxuries on top. I can't see how socialism will change that other than making no one have any luxuries.

You are blind then.
You are underpaid, this is a fact. While the owner of the theater takes a tax from you, you don't have it and if you don't have it, although you deserve it, it means you are underpaid.
The whole idea of capitalism is that you are paid for your worth - Meritocracy. In this situation Opal is not underpaid. For the theatre to function it needs tight margins, and so it can't very well afford to give its staff a 30% cut each. You probably know very little - or are pretending very well - about small businesses, and for that matter, large businesses. I work for a small business and my father owns a small business. I bet you do nothing or have a cosy job, or are infact still a student who is comfortably middle-class. If you had worked in a small business you would realise that no one is being exploited, infact I am very well paid and I enjoy working there; I especially like my boss.

No, I am not underpaid and I doubt Opal is either. I have also worked for a large business and again I was not underpaid. What you fail to see is that there are margins in life which mean that staff cannot be paid extortionate amounts; yet the crucial thing you miss is that in capitalism there are opportunities to progress and to be paid more. That is the beauty of capitalism. I can begin at the bottom of the ladder, but - especially in a large business - I can progress as high as my ability and potential will allow me.

If you had lived a tol and spent your days working at the bottom of a ladder you would understand this. As it is, I would be interested to know what you have done or are doing to see whether it is simply your lack of experience in the world that gives you these views.

I can hear those cogs turning again, and I know your thinking why on earth would a "fat-cat" owner want to allow people up from the bottom of the ladder. Good people, hard workers, and intelligence improves performance. You want them to be near the top, making the tough decisions, and to one day take over. That is what socialists and communists are so scared of, a bit of competition. There is no exploitation anymore, that is history, there is simply competition and you're just scared.

Whereas socialism and communism do what exactly? Destroy the free-market system? Besides, you're still thinking of capitalism as being the powerful versus the weak. You forget the middle-classes. If a board of directors don't sell their product at an affordable price then no one will buy it. I agree that some things are too expensive, but people are so righteous now-a-days that they forget how much we really have now for so little. Christ man, a car is supposed to be a luxury, further education a god-send, and a 4-bedroom house a miracle.

Only the rich and the well-off should be able to afford these things. The basic economic problem is limited resources and unlimited wants. This means that not everyone can have everything, and the only way to distribute things fairly is with a free-market price mechanism. The poor get the basics: food, shelter et cetera, and the rich get the luxuries on top. I can't see how socialism will change that other than making no one have any luxuries.Oh yes this is all true, but I was talking about communism, not socialism and you were talking about capitalism, not free market.

The US works because there are slaves around the world to work for it.
Sure.......

The US works because there are slaves around the world to work for it.
example please?

The whole idea of capitalism is that you are paid for your worth - Meritocracy. In this situation Opal is not underpaid. For the theatre to function it needs tight margins, and so it can't very well afford to give its staff a 30% cut each. You probably know very little - or are pretending very well - about small businesses, and for that matter, large businesses. I work for a small business and my father owns a small business. I bet you do nothing or have a cosy job, or are infact still a student who is comfortably middle-class. If you had worked in a small business you would realise that no one is being exploited, infact I am very well paid and I enjoy working there; I especially like my boss.

No, I am not underpaid and I doubt Opal is either. I have also worked for a large business and again I was not underpaid. What you fail to see is that there are margins in life which mean that staff cannot be paid extortionate amounts; yet the crucial thing you miss is that in capitalism there are opportunities to progress and to be paid more. That is the beauty of capitalism. I can begin at the bottom of the ladder, but - especially in a large business - I can progress as high as my ability and potential will allow me.

If you had lived a tol and spent your days working at the bottom of a ladder you would understand this. As it is, I would be interested to know what you have done or are doing to see whether it is simply your lack of experience in the world that gives you these views.

I can hear those cogs turning again, and I know your thinking why on earth would a "fat-cat" owner want to allow people up from the bottom of the ladder. Good people, hard workers, and intelligence improves performance. You want them to be near the top, making the tough decisions, and to one day take over. That is what socialists and communists are so scared of, a bit of competition. There is no exploitation anymore, that is history, there is simply competition and you're just scared.

You make great points, and I agree with all of them. However, I feel I should warn you that you are wasting your efforts on someone who refuses to see reality.

Oh yes this is all true, but I was talking about communism, not socialism and you were talking about capitalism, not free market.
Change socialim for communism and it still rings true. Also, I must be confused: Capitalism is far closer to a free-market system than socialism or communism will ever be, infact it's so close that I dare say capitalism is a free-market system. "Laissez-faire economy" doesn't just sound nice, it applies to capitalism.

Don't believe me? Well I like this definition from dictionary.com, it's pretty good:

cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Whereas socialism and communism do what exactly? Destroy the free-market system? Besides, you're still thinking of capitalism as being the powerful versus the weak. You forget the middle-classes. If a board of directors don't sell their product at an affordable price then no one will buy it. I agree that some things are too expensive, but people are so righteous now-a-days that they forget how much we really have now for so little. Christ man, a car is supposed to be a luxury, further education a god-send, and a 4-bedroom house a miracle.

Only the rich and the well-off should be able to afford these things. The basic economic problem is limited resources and unlimited wants. This means that not everyone can have everything, and the only way to distribute things fairly is with a free-market price mechanism. The poor get the basics: food, shelter et cetera, and the rich get the luxuries on top. I can't see how socialism will change that other than making no one have any luxuries.

A car luxury? Id' wish, i cant go to work without it. Maybe for you its a luxury, but not everyone has it as easy as you.


I really have to quote this(again):
Only the rich and the well-off should be able to afford these things.
No, everyone should be able to afford these things!!

The whole idea of capitalism is that you are paid for your worth - Meritocracy. In this situation Opal is not underpaid. For the theatre to function it needs tight margins, and so it can't very well afford to give its staff a 30% cut each. You probably know very little - or are pretending very well - about small businesses, and for that matter, large businesses. I work for a small business and my father owns a small business. I bet you do nothing or have a cosy job, or are infact still a student who is comfortably middle-class. If you had worked in a small business you would realise that no one is being exploited, infact I am very well paid and I enjoy working there; I especially like my boss.Meritocracy is not capitalism. Those are two different things. You're exploited and you don't know it. If you work for $100, $10 is going to the investors at best, at worst, $99. If you own $90 you think noone is exploiting you but you pay a tax to a lazy guy who is exploiting you. The theatre need funds to expand, but the tax you pay is not for that, it is making the owner of the theatre live at your expense.

No, I am not underpaid and I doubt Opal is either. I have also worked for a large business and again I was not underpaid. What you fail to see is that there are margins in life which mean that staff cannot be paid extortionate amounts; yet the crucial thing you miss is that in capitalism there are opportunities to progress and to be paid more. That is the beauty of capitalism. I can begin at the bottom of the ladder, but - especially in a large business - I can progress as high as my ability and potential will allow me.Large businesses. Let's take Microsoft -> 85% profit margin. Actually in capitalism you can progress higher than your ability allows you, if you're lucky, whereas you are keeping people from progress up to their ability.

If you had lived a tol and spent your days working at the bottom of a ladder you would understand this. As it is, I would be interested to know what you have done or are doing to see whether it is simply your lack of experience in the world that gives you these views.I'm a software developer. I worked as a hotliner in a small business. I now work for a corporation bigger than you can imagine. I've also worked as a free-lancer. Is that relevant?

I can hear those cogs turning again, and I know your thinking why on earth would a "fat-cat" owner want to allow people up from the bottom of the ladder. Good people, hard workers, and intelligence improves performance. You want them to be near the top, making the tough decisions, and to one day take over. That is what socialists and communists are so scared of, a bit of competition. There is no exploitation anymore, that is history, there is simply competition and you're just scared.
I'm not scared of competition if it is fair and if we have equal rights. Actually I want real competition, not a tricked one.

example please?
Nike's employees in China.

You make great points, and I agree with all of them. However, I feel I should warn you that you are wasting your efforts on someone who refuses to see reality.
I'm afraid you are one of those guyz who don't understand communism and capitalism. Yes he made good points but they were irrelevant to capitalism or to communism.

I really have to quote this(again):
No, everyone should be able to afford these things!!
People can afford what the market allows them to afford. There is a reason why not everyone is walking around with gold rings and diamond necklesses.

A car luxury? Id' wish, i cant go to work without it. Maybe for you its a luxury, but not everyone has it as easy as you.
I don't have it easy. I have to work hard to rise above my fellow students. I am advantaged in a way because I am abnormally motivated to out-do them, which I do, with style.

I probably am not making myself completely clear. I am advocating capitalism by default. I am more of a libertarian who advocates a Meritocracy. Capitalism is far closer to this than strong socialism or communism will ever be.

Change socialim for communism and it still rings true. Also, I must be confused: Capitalism is far closer to a free-market system than socialism or communism will ever be, infact it's so close that I dare say capitalism is a free-market system. "Laissez-faire economy" doesn't just sound nice, it applies to capitalism.

Don't believe me? Well I like this definition from dictionary.com, it's pretty good:

cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
OK capitalism uses the free market. However, capitalism and free market are two different things.
You talk about the price of cars and food, not about the prices of stock shares. I agree the free market is the best way to find the price. I don't agree to sell stock shares on the free market.

People can afford what the market allows them to afford. There is a reason why not everyone is walking around with gold rings and diamond necklesses.


I don't have it easy. I have to work hard to rise above my fellow students. I am advantaged in a way because I am abnormally motivated to out-do them, which I do, with style.

I probably am not making myself completely clear. I am advocating capitalism by default. I am more of a libertarian who advocates a Meritocracy. Capitalism is far closer to this than strong socialism or communism will ever be.First off, let's not talk about socialism please. You can have social capitalism and social communism.
Second off, you have to work, but others don't. They just have to have the capital working for them.

First off, let's not talk about socialism please. You can have social capitalism and social communism.
Second off, you have to work, but others don't. They just have to have the capital working for them.

Most people have a combination of both. If you work in software and don't have any investments...well that's your fault

Meritocracy is not capitalism. Those are two different things. You're exploited and you don't know it. If you work for $100, $10 is going to the investors at best, at worst, $99. If you own $90 you think noone is exploiting you but you pay a tax to a lazy guy who is exploiting you. The theatre need funds to expand, but the tax you pay is not for that, it is making the owner of the theatre live at your expense.
Whoa there, you've completely lost me. I get paid cash, I lose nothing to no one. I admit I was scammed by the government when I worked for the larger company because the Inland Revenue thought I was older than I was and charged me too much tax, but I don't hold the company responsible - infact it was my own fault.

Large businesses. Let's take Microsoft -> 85% profit margin. Actually in capitalism you can progress higher than your ability allows you, if you're lucky, whereas you are keeping people from progress up to their ability.
I'm a software developer. I worked as a hotliner in a small business. I now work for a corporation bigger than you can imagine. I've also worked as a free-lancer. Is that relevant?
If you're lucky you can pull-off a backflip without hurting your back, but in reality I doubt that would happen unless you know what you're doing and are good enough. As far as I can see I have never kept anyone from progressing, perhaps you were an evil man and stopped someone from progressing "luckily".

I'm not scared of competition if it is fair and if we have equal rights. Actually I want real competition, not a tricked one.
I suppose it is possible for there to be competition with socialism and communism, but only in a demand for a better job. I wont say there is no incentive, but surely there are some jobs that wouldn't be done without that marvelous incentive of pay.

You make great points, and I agree with all of them. However, I feel I should warn you that you are wasting your efforts on someone who refuses to see reality.
BTW you talk about seeing reality, but you don't see people are starving around the world. Take a look at what is happening in Argentina. Now tell me about the free market, how much money you have and how happy you are and tell me this is reality. I believe you, this is the only reality you see. The capitalist propaganda works with your personnal experience. You think everything goes well. You talk over the internet with people from Canada and from Australia and they all say life is so good. So you think this is reality.

What happens when neither is better. But both are part of the answer?
In a capitalist system a few control most of the resources. In communism everyone given an equal share of little.
It would nice if for once instead of of simply critisizing we tried to highlight where each hold benefits.

errr.......maybe I should be on another thread. Sorry had a "hippy" moment...

People can afford what the market allows them to afford. There is a reason why not everyone is walking around with gold rings and diamond necklesses.


I don't have it easy. I have to work hard to rise above my fellow students. I am advantaged in a way because I am abnormally motivated to out-do them, which I do, with style.

I probably am not making myself completely clear. I am advocating capitalism by default. I am more of a libertarian who advocates a Meritocracy. Capitalism is far closer to this than strong socialism or communism will ever be.

Correct not everyone can have everything (or atleast not in todays society)
But i frown upon anyone who says "only the rich and well off should be able to afford these things". Being rich is (for most people) based on luck.
I favor a Bergson-Vitalistisc Saint Simontist Structuralist society where you get awarded for your work. A society where everyone has equal chances.
But thats not going to happen very soon (unfortunatly).

Most people have a combination of both. If you work in software and don't have any investments...well that's your fault
You're kidding. Only 2% of the planet have the capital.

Would we actually have the resoures to bring everyone up to the same level under communism?

Being rich is (for most people) based on luck.
I know we could never resolve such an argument, but I severely disagree with you. I have known some rich people and I have known some extremely rich people. They were all intelligent hard-working people; except for one, who certainly wasn't lucky, he was an idiot, who had a rich - intelligent - father.

You're kidding. Only 2% of the planet have the capital.
What's that? Captain Planet has 2% of the world's capital? He must be pretty damn rich.

Whoa there, you've completely lost me. I get paid cash, I lose nothing to no one. I admit I was scammed by the government when I worked for the larger company because the Inland Revenue thought I was older than I was and charged me too much tax, but I don't hold the company responsible - infact it was my own fault.The amount of pay they give you is not equal to the amount of work you do, unless you have stock shares. Do you have stock shares?

If you're lucky you can pull-off a backflip without hurting your back, but in reality I doubt that would happen unless you know what you're doing and are good enough. As far as I can see I have never kept anyone from progressing, perhaps you were an evil man and stopped someone from progressing "luckily".
No not you, but the owners of capital.

I suppose it is possible for there to be competition with socialism and communism, but only in a demand for a better job. I wont say there is no incentive, but surely there are some jobs that wouldn't be done without that marvelous incentive of pay.
Which ones?

"Capitalism is that you are paid for your worth - Meritocracy"
Capitalism is intrinsically not a meritocracy, as capital is apportioned not on the basis of your merit or your need, but your capital. Any-one who owns more capital benefits more from a capitalist society, regardless of merit.

Your argument that capitalism is a meritocracy, is based on the assumption that people only gain capital on the basis of merit. This clearly is not the case, as often an individual will gain their wealth from the previous generation- a factor entire separate from the individual's merit.

While it may be nice to imagine that any given individual has the chance to work hard and aspire to the top level this is not the case- nor is it true that the individual is free in capitalism to achieve the highest level of attainment that their merit allows, even if we accept the capitalist assumption that achievement and capital earned are synonymous.

Taking two individuals of equal merit, it is obvious that the one born into a family with greater wealth can afford them greater advantages. Not least as the richer family has the freedom to get their child sent to a good fee-paying school where almost every student will go to HE, as opposed to an inner-city school from which almost no-one will. Moreover, it is clear that even if the less wealthy student is more intelligent than his wealthier peer, and gains academic success far exceeding the other, it is the less talented, but richer individual who will now be able to set up a small business with his capital rather than the more gifted, more meritworthy individual.

In addition, as capitalism rewards according to market forces, it is incorrect to assume a link between reward and merit. He who inherits wealth and invests it, will unquestionably make far more money than some-one working 15 hours a day doing physical labour, or a lecturer in an esoteric area of acadaemia earning a pittance of a wage.

Correct not everyone can have everything (or atleast not in todays society)
But i frown upon anyone who says "only the rich and well off should be able to afford these things". Being rich is (for most people) based on luck.
I favor a Bergson-Vitalistisc Saint Simontist Structuralist society where you get awarded for your work. A society where everyone has equal chances.
But thats not going to happen very soon (unfortunatly).

Being rich is based on luck for a few, not most. Most millionaires are self made.

Would we actually have the resoures to bring everyone up to the same level under communism?
By ending the class system, everyone wins.

I'm not going to read the essay, I shall simply agree with the thread title.

I know we could never resolve such an argument, but I severely disagree with you. I have known some rich people and I have known some extremely rich people. They were all intelligent hard-working people; except for one, who certainly wasn't lucky, he was an idiot, who had a rich - intelligent - father.The problem is that most intelligent people are not rich and they are hidden from you.

Nike's employees in China.
They are compensated. Trust me, whatever the Nike Chinese workers are getting is more than they would get working for a state factory in Communist China.

"Capitalism is that you are paid for your worth - Meritocracy"
Capitalism is intrinsically not a meritocracy, as capital is apportioned not on the basis of your merit or your need, but your capital. Any-one who owns more capital benefits more from a capitalist society, regardless of merit.

Your argument that capitalism is a meritocracy, is based on the assumption that people only gain capital on the basis of merit. This clearly is not the case, as often an individual will gain their wealth from the previous generation- a factor entire separate from the individual's merit.

While it may be nice to imagine that any given individual has the chance to work hard and aspire to the top level this is not the case- nor is it true that the individual is free in capitalism to achieve the highest level of attainment that their merit allows, even if we accept the capitalist assumption that achievement and capital earned are synonymous.

Taking two individuals of equal merit, it is obvious that the one born into a family with greater wealth can afford them greater advantages. Not least as the richer family has the freedom to get their child sent to a good fee-paying school where almost every student will go to HE, as opposed to an inner-city school from which almost no-one will. Moreover, it is clear that even if the less wealthy student is more intelligent than his wealthier peer, and gains academic success far exceeding the other, it is the less talented, but richer individual who will now be able to set up a small business with his capital rather than the more gifted, more meritworthy individual.

In addition, as capitalism rewards according to market forces, it is incorrect to assume a link between reward and merit. He who inherits wealth and invests it, will unquestionably make far more money than some-one working 15 hours a day doing physical labour, or a lecturer in an esoteric area of acadaemia earning a pittance of a wage.

One does not need to have an extensive amount of capital to start a business. There are a variety of financing options available. In fact, nearly every business relies on some sort of outside money.

I'm not going to read the essay, I shall simply agree with the thread title.
I guess that is one way to do it :D

The problem is that most intelligent people are not rich and they are hidden from you.

The fact is, on average, the more intelligent you are, the wealthier you will be.

Being rich is based on luck for a few, not most. Most millionaires are self made.They all live in the same area though.

Not least as the richer family has the freedom to get their child sent to a good fee-paying school where almost every student will go to HE, as opposed to an inner-city school from which almost no-one will. Moreover, it is clear that even if the less wealthy student is more intelligent than his wealthier peer, and gains academic success far exceeding the other, it is the less talented, but richer individual who will now be able to set up a small business with his capital rather than the more gifted, more meritworthy individual.
Statistics suggest that children coming from a wealthier background are generally more intelligent than children from a poor background; interpret this how you will, but these statistics came from a Labour government.

BTW you talk about seeing reality, but you don't see people are starving around the world. Take a look at what is happening in Argentina. Now tell me about the free market, how much money you have and how happy you are and tell me this is reality. I believe you, this is the only reality you see. The capitalist propaganda works with your personnal experience. You think everything goes well. You talk over the internet with people from Canada and from Australia and they all say life is so good. So you think this is reality.

I see all these things. I also see that your blind ideology requires you to believe that I do not see them. I also see that, in a free society, I am in no way, shape, or form OBLIGATED to feed the starving masses by my labor. I may help them if I wish; no one will stop me. But to OBLIGATE me to feed them can only be done by force, and theft of that which I produce (i.e., my paycheck). Force and theft are immoral. I am not a means to someone else's end; my life is its own end. I cannot be morally obligated to sacrifice myself for a stranger.

They are compensated. Trust me, whatever the Nike Chinese workers are getting is more than they would get working for a state factory in Communist China.
This is the old capitalism vs feudal system.
I agree it could be worse than capitalism. However those people would have much more reward in a communist world.

The fact is, on average, the more intelligent you are, the wealthier you will be.
Thi is a factor, but your place of birth is a greater factor.

They all live in the same area though.

Wealth is relative

Thi is a factor, but your place of birth is a greater factor.
I think your class is an even bigger factor.

I see all these things. I also see that your blind ideology requires you to believe that I do not see them. I also see that, in a free society, I am in no way, shape, or form OBLIGATED to feed the starving masses by my labor. I may help them if I wish; no one will stop me. But to OBLIGATE me to feed them can only be done by force, and theft of that which I produce (i.e., my paycheck). Force and theft are immoral. I am not a means to someone else's end; my life is its own end. I cannot be morally obligated to sacrifice myself for a stranger.I accept that. Now do you accept that the strangers are under no obligation to be sacrificed for you?

Wealth is relativeTo capital.

I think your class is an even bigger factor.I don't think so. Working in a factory in the US is not the same as working in a factory in Botswana in terms of reward.

I think your class is an even bigger factor.

Class? This is true in some countries to be sure. But that is an issue of government and culture, not capitalism.

This is the old capitalism vs feudal system.
I agree it could be worse than capitalism. However those people would have much more reward in a communist world.
So why do they work for Nike instead of some state run factory? And dont they live in a communist nation anyway? And I disagree, neither capitalism nor communism have anything to do with the feudal system. The feudal system was a way of government, and capitalism and communism are economic systems.

To capital.

To where you live

Getting paid $1/hour in Rwanda is better than $10/hour in the US. And it is certainly better than their other options.

Americans get cheaper goods, Rwandans get richer.

With free trade, all parties benefit

"One does not need to have an extensive amount of capital to start a business. There are a variety of financing options available. In fact, nearly every business relies on some sort of outside money."

While this is true you must surely accept that some-one born with large wealth will naturall have a greater chance of success in business, ceteris paribus, than some-one who has less.

I shall introduce you to this scenario-
I am academically brilliant
I am from a lower-class family
I graduate with one of the best degrees available in this country, and £40,000 of debt.

Indisputably my ability to start a successful business, is considerably less than some-one who is from a wealthier background. Furthermore, my academic success is far less than it would have been were I born to a wealthier family, and thus had access to an education proces superior to that which would otherwise be possible.

"Communist China"
China is not communist- it is "free market socialist" or alternatively, an authoritarian capitalist dictatorship.

"children coming from a wealthier background are generally more intelligent than children from a poor background"
I presume you're not suggesting that this is due to some genetic superiority intrinsic to richer people, especially since there is limited link between the intelligence of two generations. Thus the statistics would suggest that the methods of determining intelligence, support the assertion that children born to wealthier families have an advantage over those from poorer backgrounds.

I accept that. Now do you accept that the strangers are under no obligation to be sacrificed for you?

I do accept that others are not obligated to be sacrificed for me. I do not wish them to be, at all. I wish they could all be as happy as I am.

Are you suggesting that they are being sacrificed for me? If so, in what way?

"I do accept that others are not obligated to be sacrificed for me. I do not wish them to be, at all. I wish they could all be as happy as I am."

Consider: A society where your skills are not required- you have nothing to give in return for goods or services. Would you not find it equitable that others provide for your despite your inability to provide anything in return?

"One does not need to have an extensive amount of capital to start a business. There are a variety of financing options available. In fact, nearly every business relies on some sort of outside money."

While this is true you must surely accept that some-one born with large wealth will naturall have a greater chance of success in business, ceteris paribus, than some-one who has less.

I shall introduce you to this scenario-
I am academically brilliant
I am from a lower-class family
I graduate with one of the best degrees available in this country, and £40,000 of debt.

Indisputably my ability to start a successful business, is considerably less than some-one who is from a wealthier background. Furthermore, my academic success is far less than it would have been were I born to a wealthier family, and thus had access to an education proces superior to that which would otherwise be possible.


Your ability to start a successful business is the same, if not better than the wealthier person. You would be much more dilligent in running/operating your business if you used debt to finance it.

I can empathize with the debt situation. You may not be able to start a company as soon as others - but you still have the ability - unlike in communism.

So why do they work for Nike instead of some state run factory? And dont they live in a communist nation anyway? And I disagree, neither capitalism nor communism have anything to do with the feudal system. The feudal system was a way of government, and capitalism and communism are economic systems.
Because The factories in China are owned by foreign corporations and chinese capitalists. China is therefore not communist.

To where you live

Getting paid $1/hour in Rwanda is better than $10/hour in the US. And it is certainly better than their other options.

Americans get cheaper goods, Rwandans get richer.

With free trade, all parties benefitIn Rwanda you can't buy the latest Sony playstation though.

Because The factories in China are owned by foreign corporations and chinese capitalists. China is therefore not communist.

They are owned by western investors who propped up China's economy after all the government run factories went bankrupt.

Let's compare Hong Kong to the rest of China...

In Rwanda you can't buy the latest Sony playstation though.


And if it wasn't for capitalism, no one could

I do accept that others are not obligated to be sacrificed for me. I do not wish them to be, at all. I wish they could all be as happy as I am.

Are you suggesting that they are being sacrificed for me? If so, in what way?
You must first be aware that capitalism is the only system which is acceptable to the US. If you are communist, you get F-16 bombing the hell out of your country. This is the first point.

2nd point, the US has the capital. The factories and the land of Argentina are owned by american corporations. Therefore the argentin people are obliged to work for the american corporations since they don't have the capital to buy their land back.

Therefore the argentin population is paying a tax to the american corporations when they work. The american corporations are paying a tax to the american government. The american government is redistributing the taxes to you -> the argentin people are working for you.
Next country to be ruled by the capitalists is Irak, then North Korea and then I don't know.

"Your ability to start a successful business is the same"
My personal ability may be, but my actual capacity to is greatly reduced- to the point where it is pragmatically impossible. I can't accept that I am advantaged, by the fact that debt will make me more dilligent, I might run my business better, but it is not likely that I will run a better business than some-one who has more capital and has easier access to capital, by virtue of the fact that he won't still be paying off his University debts when he's 30/40, in fact he will have increased his assets before I could even afford to start.

Moreover, what if I don't go into business, and become one of the foremost academics in the country? Some popular publication notwithstanding, lecturers in classics can earn as little as £11,000 a year, about half what a low level civil servant can earn without even a university education.

Your ability to start a successful business is the same, if not better than the wealthier person. You would be much more dilligent in running/operating your business if you used debt to finance it.

I can empathize with the debt situation. You may not be able to start a company as soon as others - but you still have the ability - unlike in communism.
Your business will not be as efficient because you will have less capital.

Anyway, in communism you have this ability as well, although it is the same for everyone.

They are owned by western investors who propped up China's economy after all the government run factories went bankrupt.

Let's compare Hong Kong to the rest of China...
They went bankrupt because of trade embargo.

In Rwanda you can't buy the latest Sony playstation though.
Was that supposed to be a joke?

And if it wasn't for capitalism, no one could
Evidence? This comment is as void as : Without communism there would be no satellite.

Was that supposed to be a joke?No the point was that the proletariat had a lower standard of living than the bourgeoisy.

You must first be aware that capitalism is the only system which is acceptable to the US. If you are communist, you get F-16 bombing the hell out of your country. This is the first point.


When have we bombed USSR, East Europe, or Cuba?


2nd point, the US has the capital. The factories and the land of Argentina are owned by american corporations. Therefore the argentin people are obliged to work for the american corporations since they don't have the capital to buy their land back.


How did they get all of "their" land in the first place?



Therefore the argentin population is paying a tax to the american corporations when they work. The american corporations are paying a tax to the american government. The american government is redistributing the taxes to you -> the argentin people are working for you.
Next country to be ruled by the capitalists is Irak, then North Korea and then I don't know.

What tax are they paying to the american corporations?
They do not pay taxes to the US government if they pay them in another country. They are not working for us.

They went bankrupt because of trade embargo.

You claim this - yet speak out against trade. Which is it?

"I do accept that others are not obligated to be sacrificed for me. I do not wish them to be, at all. I wish they could all be as happy as I am."

Consider: A society where your skills are not required- you have nothing to give in return for goods or services. Would you not find it equitable that others provide for your despite your inability to provide anything in return?

I would not consider it equitable at all. All you have done is reversed the roles (putting me in the "poor" person's place). In your example, it would not be the "poor" person sacrificing, it would be the person being FORCED (something you neglected to mention) to "provide for" the "poor" person that is sacrificing.

BTW, a skill that is not required is not really a skill, is it?

They went bankrupt because of trade embargo.

They went bankrupt due to poor management and poor quality products

When have we bombed USSR, East Europe, or Cuba?The USSR : in Afghanistan.
East Europe : in Kosovo.
Cuba : didn't happen yet, trade embargo instead.

How did they get all of "their" land in the first place?

They never got it.

What tax are they paying to the american corporations?
They do not pay taxes to the US government if they pay them in another country. They are not working for us.
Yes they are. They work in a factory and part of their labor is given back to them. The rest goes to the HQ and to the investors in the US.

You claim this - yet speak out against trade. Which is it?
I am 100% for the free market.

They went bankrupt due to poor management and poor quality products
They why does Britney Spears make the TOP 50 in terms of selling?

The USSR : in Afghanistan.
East Europe : in Kosovo.
Cuba : didn't happen yet, trade embargo instead.

They never got it.

Yes they are. They work in a factory and part of their labor is given back to them. The rest goes to the HQ and to the investors in the US.

Right, we didn't engage because of communism.
USSR invaded Afganistan
The UN went into Kosovo

Never got it? It has been owned by US corporations since Argentina was founded?

Yep - so the investors can pour more money into Argentina
The country of origin is irrelevant

They why does Britney Spears make the TOP 50 in terms of selling?

Eye of the beholder I suppose. Demand is there...teenagers have no taste

Hopefully she will go the way of MC Hammer

Right, we didn't engage because of communism.
USSR invaded Afganistan
The UN went into KosovoThe cold war?

Never got it? It has been owned by US corporations since Argentina was founded?It has been owned by the monarchs, then by the capitalists.

Yep - so the investors can pour more money into Argentina
The country of origin is irrelevant
Indeed the country of origin is irrelevant. The point is that most of the people of Argentina does not have the capital and therefore is the slave of the people who have the capital.

"a skill that is not required is not really a skill, is it?
Since you ask- yes.
skill-An art, trade, or technique, particularly one requiring use of the hands or body.
-A developed talent or ability: writing skills.

Eye of the beholder I suppose. Demand is there...teenagers have no taste

Hopefully she will go the way of MC HammerOr is it because the capital allows you to market the product? If Britney was in communist China, it would never have been allowed to sell in the so called "free world". The point being that low quality products can be sold with no embargo and capital.

I understand your concerns - but countries that allow foreign investment grow much faster than those that don't. It has been shown again and again.

Alright - I need to go and be productive now

Or is it because the capital allows you to market the product? If Britney was in communist China, it would never have been allowed to sell in the so called "free world". The point being that low quality products can be sold with no embargo and capital.


Sounds oppressive. If I want to buy something, who are you to stop me? If people buy into stupid advertising campaigns, that's their fault.

"countries that allow foreign investment grow much faster than those that don't. It has been shown again and again."
That may be so, but were the whole world communist (or were a majority of the world communist this would be an issue affecting capitalist governments, rather than communist ones).

You must first be aware that capitalism is the only system which is acceptable to the US. If you are communist, you get F-16 bombing the hell out of your country. This is the first point.

2nd point, the US has the capital. The factories and the land of Argentina are owned by american corporations. Therefore the argentin people are obliged to work for the american corporations since they don't have the capital to buy their land back.

Therefore the argentin population is paying a tax to the american corporations when they work. The american corporations are paying a tax to the american government. The american government is redistributing the taxes to you -> the argentin people are working for you.
Next country to be ruled by the capitalists is Irak, then North Korea and then I don't know.

Your first point is just complete bullshit. What communist nations still exist in the real world? China, Cuba, North Korea. Maybe some in Africa. The U.S. is not bombing any of these countries. We are engaged in military operations in countries that constitute a threat to the U.S., not based on anything related to communism.

Your second point is both a mischaracterization of Argentina, and has nothing to do with sacrifice (which is what my question was directed at). Sacrifice is the giving up of a value for something of lesser or no value. What are the Argentinian workers sacrificing?

I understand your concerns - but countries that allow foreign investment grow much faster than those that don't. It has been shown again and again.

Alright - I need to go and be productive now
I don't understand sorry. You need a verb in your sentence I think. Sorry I'm not trying to be an ass, I really don't understand the sentence.

Sounds oppressive. If I want to buy something, who are you to stop me? If people buy into stupid advertising campaigns, that's their fault.
That's right. However, the consumer should always have the choice.

1) The U.S. isn't capitalist.
2) The U.S.S.R. wasn't communist.
3) Jennifer Government, the book by Max Barry, explains quite well why pure capitalism is pure evil. Go read it! Then come back and tell me that "Capitalism Works"!

Thank you, and have a nice day!

I need to write a long "counter-essay" explaining why the essay in the first post on this topic is wrong, but at the rate this topic is gathering new replies, my counter-essay would soon get buried. Besides, I'm rather short on time right now anyway. So I will write it tomorrow, and post it in a new topic.

In the mean time, however, here's a quick run-down on why Susa's essay is wrong:

1. He/she is attacking a strawman. Susa doesn't quite seem to understand what "communism" actually means.
2. You're assuming the 3 farmers are so stupid that they don't realize how they won't have anything to share if they all stop working.
3. Capitalism does give you incentive to "move up", but not by working. Capitalism DOES NOT reward hard work. And the poor in capitalism are far from lazy - in fact, many of them work harder than the rich.

And since I've already written a short summary of the process of capitalist exploitation a while ago, I'll copy & paste it here in support of point 3:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

1) The U.S. isn't capitalist.
2) The U.S.S.R. wasn't communist.
3) Jennifer Government, the book by Max Barry, explains quite well why pure capitalism is pure evil. Go read it! Then come back and tell me that "Capitalism Works"!

Thank you, and have a nice day!

Right. It's an academic book now.

Your first point is just complete bullshit. What communist nations still exist in the real world? China, Cuba, North Korea. Maybe some in Africa. The U.S. is not bombing any of these countries. We are engaged in military operations in countries that constitute a threat to the U.S., not based on anything related to communism.China is maybe the most capitalist country on earth.
Cuba has an embargo.
North Korea has a war.
Africa has no communist country.
Did you hear about McCarthy?

Your second point is both a mischaracterization of Argentina, and has nothing to do with sacrifice (which is what my question was directed at). Sacrifice is the giving up of a value for something of lesser or no value. What are the Argentinian workers sacrificing?
The argentin people are giving part of their work for nothing. They are sacrificing part of their standard of life.

I don't understand sorry. You need a verb in your sentence I think. Sorry I'm not trying to be an ass, I really don't understand the sentence.

No, I'm pretty sure it's alright.

China is maybe the most capitalist country on earth.
Cuba has an embargo.
North Korea has a war.
Africa has no communist country.
Did you hear about McCarthy?

The argentin people are giving part of their work for nothing. They are sacrificing part of their standard of life.

If the people were not better off they wouldn't do it. If their country was not better off, the government would not allow it.

Argentina's problem is with their currency. They allowed it to float, resulting in all sorts of problems. The IMF bailed them out, but Argentina didn't listen to their guidelines for recovery and things got worse.

Are workers in Honda's North Carolina plant being exploited by japan?

I need to write a long "counter-essay" explaining why the essay in the first post on this topic is wrong, but at the rate this topic is gathering new replies, my counter-essay would soon get buried. Besides, I'm rather short on time right now anyway. So I will write it tomorrow, and post it in a new topic.

In the mean time, however, here's a quick run-down on why Susa's essay is wrong:

1. He/she is attacking a strawman. Susa doesn't quite seem to understand what "communism" actually means.
2. You're assuming the 3 farmers are so stupid that they don't realize how they won't have anything to share if they all stop working.
3. Capitalism does give you incentive to "move up", but not by working. Capitalism DOES NOT reward hard work. And the poor in capitalism are far from lazy - in fact, many of them work harder than the rich.

And since I've already written a short summary of the process of capitalist exploitation a while ago, I'll copy & paste it here in support of point 3:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.100% agree. This is quite well written as well. I hope nobody will call you unrealistic for that though. Most people think that capitalism is the only way.

"a skill that is not required is not really a skill, is it?
Since you ask- yes.
skill-An art, trade, or technique, particularly one requiring use of the hands or body.
-A developed talent or ability: writing skills.

And where, IN THE REAL WORLD, are any of these skills not required? Which ones are not required?

Right. It's an academic book now.


The essay at the beginning of this thread uses hypothetical examples. If you find that acceptable in this argument, then you should also find the hypothetical examples brought to you by Max Barry in his book.

Now, if you want academic books, I suggest books by Dr. John Nash! For the love of everything on this world, he used mathematics to disprove the capitalistic theories!

Your first point is just complete bullshit. What communist nations still exist in the real world?
For your information, no nation ever even claimed to be communist. I'm sure you're thinking of various Soviet-style nations, and I need to remind you that they only claimed to be on the way towards communism.

I would argue that they were/are lying, but that's another matter. The point is that there was never any nation on Earth who even CLAIMED to have established communism. They were only dubbed "communist nations" by the West.

Right. It's an academic book now.


The essay at the beginning of this thread uses hypothetical examples. If you find that acceptable in this argument, then you should also find the hypothetical examples brought to you by Max Barry in his book acceptable.

Now, if you want academic books, I suggest books by Dr. John Nash! For the love of everything on this world, he used mathematics to disprove the capitalistic theories!

A cold war is not a war

The essay at the beginning of this thread uses hypothetical examples. If you find that acceptable in this argument, then you should also find the hypothetical examples brought to you by Max Barry in his book acceptable.

Now, if you want academic books, I suggest books by Dr. John Nash! For the love of everything on this world, he used mathematics to disprove the capitalistic theories!

No he didn't. Have you actually read it?

If the people were not better off they wouldn't do it. If their country was not better off, the government would not allow it.

Argentina's problem is with their currency. They allowed it to float, resulting in all sorts of problems. The IMF bailed them out, but Argentina didn't listen to their guidelines for recovery and things got worse.

Are workers in Honda's North Carolina plant being exploited by japan?
The governments we talk about are capitalist puppet governments. Moreover there is stupidity, low education and capitalist propaganda.

Their currency and capitalist exploitation.

Yes they are exploited by some capitalists in Japan.

"And where, IN THE REAL WORLD, are any of these skills not required? Which ones are not required?"
You have heard of the notion of "unemployment," yes? Many countries still have it, you know.

If you're talking about Jennifer Government, then yes, I have read it.
If you're talking about Dr. Nash, then yes, I have read some of his essays.

Now quit trying to put me down just because I've taken time to read things by academics and people who know what they're doing, rather than reading all the garbage that people spill all over this forum.

China is maybe the most capitalist country on earth.
Cuba has an embargo.
North Korea has a war.
Africa has no communist country.
Did you hear about McCarthy?

The argentin people are giving part of their work for nothing. They are sacrificing part of their standard of life.

Which country did McCarthy bomb? If there are no communist countries, how can the U.S. be bombing countries because they are communist?

The Argentinian workers are being paid for their work. To show sacrifice, you would have to show that they are giving up a better (in terms of pay, satisfaction, etc.) job to work for an American company. Why would they do that, apart from being forced? If they are being forced, who is forcing them?

Snaggletooth, the IMf openly accepted responsibility for making Argentina's economy worse. They could have made it less severe, but the IMF encouraged them to deploy various policies which made things far worse.

A cold war is not a war
Call that differently if you will. Still a big part of it was trying to undermine the communism philosophy.

Yes they are exploited by some capitalists in Japan.

No, they have a better job and higher pay than if the plant did not exist. Who cares if someone else is getting a cut? In addition, taxes are paid locally in the US.

Which country did McCarthy bomb? If there are no communist countries, how can the U.S. be bombing countries because they are communist?He didn't bomb any country, but he made a good job at propaganda against communism.

The Argentinian workers are being paid for their work. To show sacrifice, you would have to show that they are giving up a better (in terms of pay, satisfaction, etc.) job to work for an American company. Why would they do that, apart from being forced? If they are being forced, who is forcing them?
They're being paid for part of their work the rest is unpaid.
They would have a better pay in a communist world.
They are forced by the capitalists.

No, they have a better job and higher pay than if the plant did not exist. Who cares if someone else is getting a cut? In addition, taxes are paid locally in the US.Still, they are paid lower than if capitalism did not exist.
BTW I care.

If you're talking about Jennifer Government, then yes, I have read it.
If you're talking about Dr. Nash, then yes, I have read some of his essays.

Now quit trying to put me down just because I've taken time to read things by academics and people who know what they're doing, rather than reading all the garbage that people spill all over this forum.

"I have never spoken against Adam Smith"

- John Nash

Jennifer Government is not by an academic

Snaggletooth, the IMf openly accepted responsibility for making Argentina's economy worse. They could have made it less severe, but the IMF encouraged them to deploy various policies which made things far worse.


Things were pretty much screwed up all over--

Here is the report if anyone cares

http://www.imf.org/External/NP/ieo/2004/pr/eng/pr0402.htm

"I have never spoken against Adam Smith"

- John Nash
Not as such no, but his theories did disagree with some of Smith's views. The Nash Equilibrium goes against Smith's ideas.

One thing I don't understand about everyone who preaches about "pure" communism as the perfect society, is how everyone can work for the common good, as though everyone wants the exact same thing!
Since there is no such thing as mass telepathy, and human colonies do not work the same way as ants', someone has to decide what is in the common good.

I'm guessing there are people who've posted here who are fans of Linux for example (hell, there must be a lot who are anti Bill Gates at least.) The joy of capitalism (as opposed to communism), is that if you don't want to use Windows, you don't have to. If windows was the operating system of choice for a communist government, but one person didn't like it, would it be deemed in "the public good" for a team of developers to go out and design a different one to suit this one person's specifications? Or would it be more in the public good if this person were discreetly silenced and therefore allowing those designers to create something more people want?

I also don't like the idea that many of those who do belive communism is the future seem to believe that everyone else only has to "wake up" from our delusions (and the semi-religious belief that this WILL happen at some point in the future), and it will work fine. It isn't going to happen.

Still, they are paid lower than if capitalism did not exist.
BTW I care.

Nonsense

One thing I don't understand about everyone who preaches about "pure" communism as the perfect society, is how everyone can work for the common good, as though everyone wants the exact same thing!
Since there is no such thing as mass telepathy, and human colonies do not work the same way as ants', someone has to decide what is in the common good.I preaches communism. I think the common good is peace and justice.

I'm guessing there are people who've posted here who are fans of Linux for example (hell, there must be a lot who are anti Bill Gates at least.) The joy of capitalism (as opposed to communism), is that if you don't want to use Windows, you don't have to. If windows was the operating system of choice for a communist government, but one person didn't like it, would it be deemed in "the public good" for a team of developers to go out and design a different one to suit this one person's specifications? Or would it be more in the public good if this person were discreetly silenced and therefore allowing those designers to create something more people want?I believe in choice. I think you should have the choice between windows and linux. It doesn't conflict with communism.

I also don't like the idea that many of those who do belive communism is the future seem to believe that everyone else only has to "wake up" from our delusions (and the semi-religious belief that this WILL happen at some point in the future), and it will work fine. It isn't going to happen.I don't believe a communism revolution will happen. I'm just seeing that a revolution IS happening. Darfour is the latest example. It is not a communist revolution though, but I wish it was.

Now, before I go, I noticed we have a little Randroid in here spouting his usual crappy uber-capitalistic propaganda, and I just can't resist pointing out his stupidity:

I also see that, in a free society, I am in no way, shape, or form OBLIGATED to feed the starving masses by my labor.
The first thing I'm tempted to say is: If your version of "freedom" results in starving masses, then it's a "freedom" not worth having.

But that doesn't say enough; in fact, your entire argument is flawed, and your version of "freedom" is nothing short of absolute tyranny-by-property.

The masses are not starving due to any fault of their own. They are starving because other people (namely the super-rich capitalists) hold vast amounts of wealth that they did not earn. The rich acquired their wealth by exploiting the poor workers - so of course they should be OBLIGATED to give back what they stole!

In case you missed it, here's how capitalist exploitation works:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

Furthermore, property itself is immoral and illegitimate. Why? Because no one has any right to property over natural resources (such as land, for example). Property doesn't come from work alone. Property = work + natural resources. By working, people transform natural resources into something else. You are entitled to own your work, but how can you own natural resources? How can anyone own natural resources? If we go back in time to follow the history of ownership of land, we eventually come down to theft. How was private property over land first created? A guy with a big stick pointed to a patch of land, said "this land is mine", and proceeded to beat the crap out of anyone who tried to use "his" land.

Now do you see the inherent fallacy of libertarianism? Your core tenet is opposition to the initiation of force, but you defend private property despite the fact that private property can only be established through the initiation of force.

As Pierre-Joseph Proudhon so eloquently put it: PROPERTY IS THEFT.

NonsenseWell it makes sense. The owners of the factory are getting paid for owning the factory. Who is paying them? The workers. If you don't pay them just for owning, there is more left for the workers.

"how everyone can work for the common good"
Unquestionably, unless you're talking about anarcho-communism, some-one has to allocate resources. However, such things occur in free market economies, as well as ultimately in pure capitalism, as necessarily the producer has to decide upon which is going to be produced. In the scheme of things this is a very limited flaw in communism.

There may be less choice in a centrally planned society, but this is a natural part of increased efficiency, as there are fewer producers wasting resources in the production of similar products. There is no reason to assume that in a communist society those responsible for central planning would necessarily only allow production of one type of product. If there were sufficient demand for 2 types of operating system, there is no reason why they both should not be produced.

Now, before I go, I noticed we have a little Randroid in here spouting his usual crappy uber-capitalistic propaganda, and I just can't resist pointing out his[...]Proudhon so eloquently put it: PROPERTY IS THEFT.
You use a lot of rhetoric, but you sound just as bad as a Randian.

He didn't bomb any country, but he made a good job at propaganda against communism.

But, YOU SAID that the U.S. bombs countries for being communist. Now you are equivocating down to propaganda. Are you conceding that your comment on bombing was not true?

They're being paid for part of their work the rest is unpaid.
They would have a better pay in a communist world.
They are forced by the capitalists.

How is part of their work unpaid?

The fact that communism does not exist (or, conversely, that capitalism does exist) does not constitute force on anyone's part.

So, we are back to my original point: that I am not obligated to sacrifice myself for others, and others are not obligated to sacrifice for me. You have not even tried to prove that I am obligated to sacrifice, and have utterly failed to prove that others are being sacrificed for me. I'm losing interest in this discussion as a result.

Buh-bye, for now.

You use a lot of rhetoric, but you sound just as bad as a Randian.When you own something, you are not exercising your legitimate right over it, you are denying it to everybody else.

When you own something, you are not exercising your legitimate right over it, you are denying it to everybody else.
Haha, you have no idea how contradictory that is. "...not exercising your legitimate right...". Think about what words you use before you splatter them on the page, it could make a mess. I think you should clear it up, it'll be a good lesson for you.

But, YOU SAID that the U.S. bombs countries for being communist. Now you are equivocating down to propaganda. Are you conceding that your comment on bombing was not true?YEs I was exagerating in order to make the point clearer. Also they not always use F-16.

How is part of their work unpaid?The part that goes to the owner of the factory is a part of their work and is paid to the owner instead of the worker.

The fact that communism does not exist (or, conversely, that capitalism does exist) does not constitute force on anyone's part.
Capitalism in itself is the use of force. The cops and the military is here to shoot anyone who set foot on the property of the owners.

So, we are back to my original point: that I am not obligated to sacrifice myself for others, and others are not obligated to sacrifice for me. You have not even tried to prove that I am obligated to sacrifice, and have utterly failed to prove that others are being sacrificed for me. I'm losing interest in this discussion as a result.

Buh-bye, for now.
Others are giving part of their work to you because you have the capital. This is a sacrifice they are obligated to do.

bye I'm sorry you lost your interest. I hope we can continue this debate later.

"...not exercising your legitimate right..."
That makes perfect sense, ironically your own criticisms apply perfectly to your post.

Haha, you have no idea how contradictory that is. "...not exercising your legitimate right...". Think about what words you use before you splatter them on the page, it could make a mess. I think you should clear it up, it'll be a good lesson for you.Thanks. I'm not a native english speacker you know?
I meant you were not [exercising your legitimate right].
Is that clear?

EDIT : corrected a syntax error.

"...not exercising your legitimate right..."
That makes perfect sense, ironically your own criticisms apply perfectly to your post.
le·git·i·mate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-jt-mt)
adj.
Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.

People's Rights are in the constitution, and are part of various Amendments if you are an American.

le·git·i·mate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-jt-mt)
adj.
Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.

People's Rights are in the constitution, and are part of various Amendments if you are an American.I was not talking about the capitalist law.

By ending the class system, everyone wins.

ok....are you talking about giving everyone the same chances? I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

Thanks. I'm not a native english speacker you know?
I meant you were not [exercising your legitimate right].
Is that clear?

EDIT : corrected a syntax error.
You're forgiven. As for that Moss fellow...

You are using the word "legitimate" in its slang sense, to denote "not justified/right". But because it is a lawful right for a man to own property you can't even use it in its slang use, it is perfectly legitimate.

ok....are you talking about giving everyone the same chances? I don't think anyone would disagree with that.In a way yes. I was talking about putting the means of production in common.

Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business [also moral law]
Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards
Based on logical reasoning; reasonable
Authentic; genuine

We know fully well that in capitalist countries, capitalism is considered right. What we're debating in this thread is surely the theoretical and moral correctness of capitalism/communism? A debate on the legal position would be somewhat pointless, wouldn't you say?

I was not talking about the capitalist law.
What other law is there? You can't pretend there is another "communist law" to say that owning property is illigitimate. It's another circularity: the legal system is based on morality which in turn is based on the legal system. That is why you create amendments et cetera, to fit in with the current state of morality, but that doesn't mean you can say the law is immoral, so don't try and use that against me.

You're forgiven. As for that Moss fellow...

You are using the word "legitimate" in its slang sense, to denote "not justified/right". But because it is a lawful right for a man to own property you can't even use it in its slang use, it is perfectly legitimate.Well yes but this is relative to the law you are talking about isn't it?

We know fully well that in capitalist countries, capitalism is considered right. What we're debating in this thread is surely the theoretical and moral correctness of capitalism/communism? A debate on the legal position would be somewhat pointless, wouldn't you say?
What Ethical theory do you subscribe to? I would gladly destroy it, and be left with nothing other than the law to go by.

The fact that communism does not exist (or, conversely, that capitalism does exist) does not constitute force on anyone's part.
Oh good. So the fact that your ideal laissez-faire system does not exist is not a case of "use of force" on anyone's part either, correct? After all, you've just postulated that "the status quo is not force". By this logic, I could argue that if an evil totalitarian dictatorship dominated the whole world and no other systems existed, that totalitarian dictatorship would not be "force".

So, we are back to my original point: that I am not obligated to sacrifice myself for others, and others are not obligated to sacrifice for me. You have not even tried to prove that I am obligated to sacrifice, and have utterly failed to prove that others are being sacrificed for me. I'm losing interest in this discussion as a result.

Buh-bye, for now.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I know you were not talking to me, but while you were busy arguing in circles with Psylos, I've answered your statements and refuted your absurd randian dogma. However, you have utterly failed to read my post, so I will re-post it here for your viewing pleasure:

I also see that, in a free society, I am in no way, shape, or form OBLIGATED to feed the starving masses by my labor.
The first thing I'm tempted to say is: If your version of "freedom" results in starving masses, then it's a "freedom" not worth having.

But that doesn't say enough; in fact, your entire argument is flawed, and your version of "freedom" is nothing short of absolute tyranny-by-property.

The masses are not starving due to any fault of their own. They are starving because other people (namely the super-rich capitalists) hold vast amounts of wealth that they did not earn. The rich acquired their wealth by exploiting the poor workers - so of course they should be OBLIGATED to give back what they stole!

In case you missed it, here's how capitalist exploitation works:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

Furthermore, property itself is immoral and illegitimate. Why? Because no one has any right to property over natural resources (such as land, for example). Property doesn't come from work alone. Property = work + natural resources. By working, people transform natural resources into something else. You are entitled to own your work, but how can you own natural resources? How can anyone own natural resources? If we go back in time to follow the history of ownership of land, we eventually come down to theft. How was private property over land first created? A guy with a big stick pointed to a patch of land, said "this land is mine", and proceeded to beat the crap out of anyone who tried to use "his" land.

Now do you see the inherent fallacy of libertarianism? Your core tenet is opposition to the initiation of force, but you defend private property despite the fact that private property can only be established through the initiation of force.

As Pierre-Joseph Proudhon so eloquently put it: PROPERTY IS THEFT.

When you own something, you are denying this ownership to everybody else.

That's what I meant to say.

Oh, and by the way, here's one of my favourite quotes:

"The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one."
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1755

One thing I don't understand about everyone who preaches about "pure" communism as the perfect society, is how everyone can work for the common good, as though everyone wants the exact same thing!
The "common good" = the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals.

Of course we can't make EVERYONE happy; that would be utopia, and communism is certainly not utopia - it is only the best possible system we can have.

Since there is no such thing as mass telepathy, and human colonies do not work the same way as ants', someone has to decide what is in the common good.
Sometimes, yes. When that is necessary, we use a democratic process (i.e. people vote) to determine what would be in the best interest of the largest number of people.

But often, good things are self-evident: For example, it is good for you to have enough to eat, to have a home, to benefit from healthcare and education, etc.

If windows was the operating system of choice for a communist government, but one person didn't like it, would it be deemed in "the public good" for a team of developers to go out and design a different one to suit this one person's specifications? Or would it be more in the public good if this person were discreetly silenced and therefore allowing those designers to create something more people want?
First of all, there is no such thing as a "communist government". Communism is a property-less and state-less system. You might be talking about a socialist government (socialism is the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism, in which government still exists - but it must be a highly democratic government).

Second of all, silencing any person goes against our principles. Third of all, silencing that guy would be just plain stupid. What's wrong with a person shouting "I want Linux" at the top of his lungs?

And fourth of all, keep in mind that the purpose of communism is the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals. If we have enough resources to make everyone else happy AND satisfy this one guy's strange desire for a different operating system, we will do it. We only limit the number of choices if there simply aren't enough resources to give everyone the choice he/she wants.

"I preaches communism. I think the common good is peace and justice"

OK then, whose justice? Your justice? And peace? What kind of justice do we apply to those who do not want peace? Obviously they need their brains washing or something...

And my point about the computers was not that communism results in total lack of choice, but that "the common good" is an extremely vague goal, when everyone wants different things. Given that in any society, nobody can taylor-make every single thing to fit what each individual wants, somebody would have to decide what was in the public good to develop and what isnt, and inevitably, people would end up with too much of what they didnt want, and not enough of what they did, eg, when in the good ol' USSR they spent vast resources developing nice washing machines, and nuclear bombs and things, when people wanted food. (And please note, i am not saying this was communism, just that true communism would have to involve a similar decsicion making process).

The point about big coorporations making a similar decision making process is only true in industries where they have killed off all competition (where i suspect any regulators havnt been doing a good job), and the fact that thousands of new businesses are opening all the time suggests we havnt yet reached that stage. Maybe what we need is a new great depression so everyone can start again from scratch...

I really get ignored a lot, don't I?

One thing I don't understand about everyone who preaches about "pure" communism as the perfect society, is how everyone can work for the common good, as though everyone wants the exact same thing!
The "common good" = the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals.

Of course we can't make EVERYONE happy; that would be utopia, and communism is certainly not utopia - it is only the best possible system we can have.

Since there is no such thing as mass telepathy, and human colonies do not work the same way as ants', someone has to decide what is in the common good.
Sometimes, yes. When that is necessary, we use a democratic process (i.e. people vote) to determine what would be in the best interest of the largest number of people.

But often, good things are self-evident: For example, it is good for you to have enough to eat, to have a home, to benefit from healthcare and education, etc.

If windows was the operating system of choice for a communist government, but one person didn't like it, would it be deemed in "the public good" for a team of developers to go out and design a different one to suit this one person's specifications? Or would it be more in the public good if this person were discreetly silenced and therefore allowing those designers to create something more people want?
First of all, there is no such thing as a "communist government". Communism is a property-less and state-less system. You might be talking about a socialist government (socialism is the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism, in which government still exists - but it must be a highly democratic government).

Second of all, silencing any person goes against our principles. Third of all, silencing that guy would be just plain stupid. What's wrong with a person shouting "I want Linux" at the top of his lungs?

And fourth of all, keep in mind that the purpose of communism is the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals. If we have enough resources to make everyone else happy AND satisfy this one guy's strange desire for a different operating system, we will do it. We only limit the number of choices if there simply aren't enough resources to give everyone the choice he/she wants.

Perhaps you only think you get ignored alot because you assume anyone who reads your post will suddenly convert to your way of thinking.

Let me say that I am all in favour of democracy, and i believe it is the best system of government going. I do not believe though that you can decide the correct quota of one operating system to another though voting, that happens through market forces.

There will never be enough resources to provide everything for everyone, so market forces determine which products go ahead (except when monopolies form etc), and result in the most number of people getting the best products bearing in mind resources available. This in my mind, is clearly preferable to a commitee deciding the best thing, or people going out everyday and putting what products they want in a ballot box so the goverment can make the right number.

Im off now, but i would gladly continue this argument if i werent. pllease dont reply to this post by copy/pasting your last two again. bye!

Capitalism in itself is the use of force. The cops and the military is here to shoot anyone who set foot on the property of the owners.


Capitalism is not a government. There is no force involved.

Are you saying that in a communist state, there is no need for police?

...or people going out everyday and putting what products they want in a ballot box so the goverment can make the right number.



Awesome. I want a helicopter.

In a way yes. I was talking about putting the means of production in common.

But even in that situation. We will still own things won't we? Whether a skill or a posession. Would they not then trade their service or product. Say a craftsman works that little harder to get something extra, say a meal. would that not be the start of capitalism. A get the impression that alot of people here seem more interested in evening the "playing field" than changing the world.
Although I feel there could be alternatives to the capitalism system, whever now or in the future. Our "philosophy" for the lack of a better word, is not up to the challenge. I find that alot of you who are "pro-communist" call for equality in property, but not in mind.
This is not meant as an insult. It's just that are marred by capitalistic aggression like all of use. Without a true change in perception how can you expect to change the system?

going to bed. night