NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just going over all the posts here and I was wondering, is your country capitalist or communist?

they're sort of the same thing if you look at it. mine is capitalist, btw.

Communism

Capitalist

More Keynesian then Lassiez Faire though

Mine is more communist.

I've gone from a socialist democracy,
to a scandanavian liberal paradise
and i'm now a left-wing utopia

A magnificent achievement i think

Just look at my nation title.

Capitalist ofcause!!!!

The only different between a commie and a socialist is the socialist will smile then he robs you and the he call it "TAX". :D

capitalist of course!
Commies r messed up even tho... its a pretty cool idea but it doesnt work.. capitalist all da way! :p

Capitalist ofcause!!!!

The only different between a commie and a socialist is the socialist will smile then he robs you and the he call it "TAX". :D

and a capitalist will just rob you and call it 'an investment',

Socialist

capitalist of course!
Commies r messed up even tho... its a pretty cool idea but it doesnt work.. capitalist all da way! :p

:rolleyes:

Communism could work, but man's greediness gets in the way... When you look at it, a communistic society could be described as what some of us call "Heaven", but the world has not been abole to see the communist idea full fledge because of capitalist interference(sp?)... By the way, I'm communist. :p

and a capitalist will just rob you and call it 'an investment',

Hardly. Investing is when you put funding into something, not when you take funding from something.

Try a better angsty anticapitalist analogy. :P

Communist.

I am definitely capitalist

Capitalist.

Well, not capitalist nor communism, liberal.

Most definately capitalistic.

Scandinavian Liberal Paradise... Thats closer to communism than capitalism

I'm a fascist.

Closely followed by capitalism.

Centrist democracy, I have more political and civil rights than economic, so more left wing.

Socialist really... So communism is close enough. Yey for the Reds!

and a capitalist will just rob you and call it 'an investment',

No, a capitalist would rob you and call it a "fair" wage.

Well, not capitalist nor communism, liberal.

Bloody liberals *shakes fist*. They could be left, right, capitalist or communist... You can't trust "liberals"... *narrows eyes*

I doubt you could get a more capitalist society than Omicron Alpha. 0% income tax. The government is a corporation made up of competing factions, whose only responsibility is to keep the economy as strong as possible and act on behalf of the economy in foreign issues. In fact there's even a religion based on money. All that and yet you have more civil liberties than you can shake a can of money at, and the only requirements to 'vote' is to have some cash in your pocket to buy a share in your preferred faction.

Laissez-faire capitalist. Death to the nanny state. :mp5:

Is there a region of capitalist nations?

A bit of Capitalist, a bit of Communist, we just accept it all. (Course, we still use money to buy things from other nations. So our foreign policy is Capitalist, and our Internal policy is communist)

Is there a region of capitalist nations?

There are probably shedloads. There's one called Capitalist Alliance that's pretty large, however.

Is there a region of capitalist nations?
Or check out the Free Trade Zone (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=free%20trade%20zone). It's way better then any other NS region. There is even a stock market in the works.

Communism would not work. Never/ever. Does not matter if the country is full of saints, it will not work. The structure of communism makes it fail.

Communism or Socialism=Taking others work and violating innate rights.

Mostly lassiez-faire capitalist.... Hey, I'm a libertarian!

Socialist all the way (except there is a little capitalism in the economy)

Communism or Socialism=Taking others work and violating innate rights.

How does it take work? If anything, it makes work. In order for a communist society to grow strong so it can support itself, it has to work at everything, which also means making things in bulk and so the prices are cheaper.

Capitalism definitely. Capitalist competition rewards efficiency, whereas a single government-dominated monopoly, like what is created in communism, gets buisness (and tax money!) whether it works or is useless, because people have no other choice but to buy from them.
The use of force to "redistribute" what was justly earned is the principle behind communism.
Don't punish people just because they're better at creating and earning money than you are.
If anybody's looking for a capitalist region, try Galts Gulch. It's growing quite fast, and is very active.

How does communism take work? If I invent something, the reward goes to the common. I don't own my work. I have no incentive to work. Did the USSR work out? How's China? Is it moving toward communism or capitalism?

Well, I'm a newb.

My country says it's Democratic Socialist but I'm really trying to make it "Redist," which is a government style I invented that calls for indiscriminate civil rights and freedoms for people but only allows capitalism to exist on a local scale in which large corporations are controlled by the government. I wonder if there are options that will let me do that.

It's actually Capitalist vs. Socialist.

But, we're a mix of both.

Communism is just Socialist Statism... Fascism is Capitalist Statism

Capitalism isn't the opposite of Communism, in fact, alot of capitalists, will degrade towards Fascism, which is really not much better than Communism...

Capitalist Libertarianism is Lassiez-faire
Socialist Libertarianism (which is rare) came in the form of an ealy French political party called the Libertaire.

Everyone falls into this format of 2 axis political mapping, regardless of your views.

well, scandanavian liberal paradise.
with capitalism, you get a huge gap between upper and lower classes. too much reward goes to those who are best off (social darwinism would attest to them being the most efficient, but it's a load of BS), and has nothing for the guy on the bottom. in socialism, the government takes money from everyone, and uses it to fund stuff like healthcare and education for everyone, rahter than having the rich supply it for themselves and the poor go without. everyone has less spending money, but the government pays for your basic needs to some extent, freeing up money as well.
capitalism creates upper and lower crusts. socialism strives to get everyone closer to the middle. it's all a matter of opinion, generally influenced by where you yourself are, in the interest of preserving/attaining as much wealth as possible.

Very well said McEacherntopia. There are many diverse forms of capitalist to communist economic models and part of the danger in streamlining the global economy is the spread of the libertine US style capitalism. I chose to develop a market-socialist economic model because i believe that the 'market' is the most effecient RL means of maximising production effeciency. This also means that income is relative to productivity, as opposed to the universalist appraoch of say the USSR where a doctor, mechanic and single mother may all be living in the same bleak accomodation and there is no incentive to increase production, effeciency or develop initiative.

Economics of course isn't seperate to the political or social system. My society is proud of its long historical tradition of progressive legislation, democracy and social cohesion. Civil rights including universal access to education, healthcare, adequate wages and work hours and a "fair go" influence the economic and political system. A democratic government ensures that for the most part the 'will of the people' directs legislation including industrial and labour law.

I suppose it would be fair then to say that my 'ecopnomic' model is 'democratic market socialism'

US Capitalism is far from libertine...

high economic freedoms (classed as libertarian according to the NS map) and my country is classed as 'Capitalizt'

but, I have a 100% tax rate LOL

I've been a capitaist right-wing utopia since my nation started. :)

Started off totally Socialist, then I went to a Social Democrat style Semi-Socialism, but then I taxed and regulated them out of existence so now I'm back Socialist
I've always been Liberal tho.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

Socialist.

Former socialist working towards capitalist.

My other nations are all capitalist though

Communism!!

My nation is an Anarchy, but it's definitely Selfish Laissez-Faire Capitalism. :cool:
A member of Capitalist Paradise too :fluffle:

True capitalism.

capitalist



no freedom without economic freedom

I'm a capitalist.


Is there a region of capitalist nations?
If you're still interested then - as has already been mentioned - the Capitalist Alliance is a region of capitalist nations. As President of the CA I welcome you to join the Capitalist Alliance.

Communist

Capitalism doesn't work.

Beth Gellert is presently shifting into a relatively advanced communism, calling it Igovian, after one of its most enduring supporters, as a way to distinguish it from less advanced movements.

The nation is presently being organised into, "Pantisocratic Phalansteries" or democratic home colonies, each lived in by around three thousand comrades. Currency has faded into history along with even more primitive tools such as religion, party politics, and the plebescite process.

The principle thrust of Igovian Soviet Communism is described by Graeme Igo, as cited in a recent lecture, as the struggle for, "public versus private ownership and direct versus representative democracy".

Beddgelens are (communally) educated to understand that politics and economics are evolutionary in nature, and that no matter what any narrow, insecure capitalist may try to tell them, this arbitrary point in time at which we find ourselves is not the be all and end all of a process millions of years old, stupid. They understand that the plebescite multi-party politics practiced by most critical capitalist states are in truth false democracy, and that representation is a denial of participation. The Party is another instrument by which power is weilded in dictatorial fashion, and only direct democracy prevents this. The community of goods practiced in the Igovian Soviet Commonwealth's Phalansteries along with liberal attitudes associated with that and the previously mentioned democratic system lead to recent exchanges such as the below:

"Where's the radio? It seems to have gone missing!"
"Young Anil's got it."
"Ah, okay."
"Ahahaha! My radio!"
"Yeah, that's okay, we can all hear it."
"But... but... I took it! Ha! Mine!"
"That's fine, we practice community of goods, and there's plenty more where that came from."
"But... but... I'm doing drugs, dad! What do you think of that?"
"Ah, I was wondering where that opium went. Enjoy?"
"Yeah... well... I scrawled graffiti on your door, did you see that?"
"Oh, yes. I sprayed a rebuttal on yours. Well structured argument, though. I especially liked the creative swearing."
"Fuck."
"..No, it was better than that, don't get lazy."
"Well, fine! Damn you! I... I... I'm not going to attend the Local Senate and have my say! Ha!"
"OH! You little hellion! I'm calling the UN at once! The next report on rebellious youth will include this little incident!"

Short answer, "Communist."

and a capitalist will just rob you and call it 'an investment',
WRONG we don't rob people, we are taking care of our citizens.
Give me a country where commie rules and where people are free?? I tell you NONE!!! It dosen't excist!! Commie, dictator and farcists are the same!!
Comie = tyrany!! No freedom!! Workers are slave to the state!!No political freedom!! No freedom to worship!!

*shrugs* I don't know, neither. Mixed economy I guess.

People can make profit in this nation, but taxes are structured to 'spread the wealth' a little. This allows us to give excellent care to the poorer citizens, and to properly educate everybody for free. Crime, as a result, is scarse. Socialism, I guess you would call it.

WRONG we don't rob people, we are taking care of our citizens.
Give me a country where commie rules and where people are free?? I tell you NONE!!! It dosen't excist!! Commie, dictator and farcists are the same!!
Comie = tyrany!! No freedom!! Workers are slave to the state!!No political freedom!! No freedom to worship!!

(If you'll direct your gaze aaaall the way up to one single post prior to yours...)

communist, from a trotskyist perspective

Socialist.

I'm in the middle

Communist

Capitalism doesn't work.

Capitalism works. It also involves work. That's why you're a lazy communist.

(If you'll direct your gaze aaaall the way up to one single post prior to yours...)
What's your point? The post before was advocating socialism and not communism.

Marxist :sniper:

What's your point? The post before was advocating socialism and not communism.

Uhm, the post directly prior was mine. I think that I know what it was about, and that was an advanced communism wherein the people are free.

When you look at it, a communistic society could be described as what some of us call "Heaven", but the world has not been abole to see the communist idea full fledge because of capitalist interference(sp?)...
Heaven. Interesting. Is heaven a place where people are punished for being competent?

I've always thought that the only people who could possibly support communism, in full realization of what it entails, are the greedy little bloodsuckers with no skills but that of sucking blood out of the better animal. People who support communism deserve it.

My country is a parody of laissez-faire capitalism. I always sign my telegrams,

Rex Greenleaf,
President of the Democratic Republic of Unnilania
President of HelloBurton Oil Co.

:)

Commie, dictator and farcists are the same!!

Go ahead and add "ignorant" to your list, dumbass.

Go ahead and add "ignorant" to your list, dumxxxx.
Please don't use that languish. You don't know me. I problably old to be your dad!!

Uhm, the post directly prior was mine. I think that I know what it was about, and that was an advanced communism wherein the people are free.
What's "advanced communism"?

Please don't use that languish. You don't know me. I problably old to be your dad!!

If you are old enough to be my father, you are either mentally challenged or English is not your first language. I assumed you had to be American to be so grossly pro-capitalist, and therefore you should be able to speak better English.

Cool your jets, Fry... No seriously, they're burning Bender's face!

I'm communist btw...

The nation is presently being organised into, "Pantisocratic Phalansteries" or democratic home colonies, each lived in by around three thousand comrades. Currency has faded into history along with even more primitive tools such as religion, party politics, and the plebescite process.
Can you justify the eradication of religion? I think not. The obvious arguments of "religion causes hate and war etc" is unreasonable and is by no means a justification for a moral viewpoint.


Beddgelens are (communally) educated to understand that politics and economics are evolutionary in nature, and that no matter what any narrow, insecure capitalist may try to tell them, this arbitrary point in time at which we find ourselves is not the be all and end all of a process millions of years old, stupid.
What do you mean "economics are evolutionary in nature"? How can you "educate" someone about something that is questionable. You are obviously not an academic; only laymen and the general public think there is an obvious or definite answer to these sorts of questions. There are definite truths about various components of economic theory which are agreed amongst communists and capitalists but very few value judgements are agreed upon because they are always questionable. "Educating" people that one of these is correct eliminates the brilliance of true education and learning. I implore you to read The Advancement of Learning by Francis Bacon; one of his major criticisms is of learned men themselves and in particular supporters of antiquity and alchemists - he expands on this elsewhere and names them "Idols".

If your form of communism is based on the creation of Idols then it is a weak justification. The better battleground between communism and capitalism is in the classroom between those that realise the complexity of the issue and realise that economics is not a simple matter. I don't even attempt to give a full justification of capitalism in terms of economics at the moment because I know that I don't know enough about economics as of yet; I have a preference for capitalism because it gives me a better life. If communism was anything like you describe capitalism would give me a better chance of actually deciding for myself - because I will, if I find that communism/socialism is infact justified over capitalism then I am reasonable enough to accept that I am wrong. However, for now, I have seen far more evidence - I do in fact study economics, and I have read various texts on the subject - that supports capitalism and a free-market than supports socialism or a planned economy.


They understand that the plebescite multi-party politics practiced by most critical capitalist states are in truth false democracy, and that representation is a denial of participation. The Party is another instrument by which power is weilded in dictatorial fashion, and only direct democracy prevents this.
I am confused, how is having a single party any different to a dictatorship? Besides, I find it so petty when people attempt to slander their opponents with these vulgar platitudes about capitalists or communists/socialists being fascists or bad men with evil intentions. It's not really that big-a-deal, it's just life.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
~ Winston Churchill

The Republic of Agrigento's economic policy is most easily defined as Capitalistic.

World Factbook: Agrigento (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=350355)

If you are old enough to be my father, you are either mentally challenged or English is not your first language. I assumed you had to be American to be so grossly pro-capitalist, and therefore you should be able to speak better English.
It's one thing to be funny and witty, it is another thing to be boring and offensive. Whilst that fellow you were referring to is obviously incapable of writing coherently it is no reason for you to take him as a good example of a pro-capitalist. I also find it odd that you would suggest that someone must be American before they are "so grossly pro-capitalist" - which I assume simply means "pro-capitalist" - since we English have been known to be capitalists occasionally.

Also, I have conversed with a great number of Americans over the internet and have found them to be as equally capable of writing good English as any one else; some are better than others, in content and in style.

I may be wrong about this and other viewpoints will be appreciated...

In a capitalist society, isn't there a large gap between the rich and the poor?

Socialism and Communism is all about equality, right? No person will be higher in society than another... Everyone is equal... We've established the fact that it works in theory, haven't we? And it's the corruption of the governing body that lets it down in practice?

Communism could work, but man's greediness gets in the way...

I guess you can only build communism without people then :-P

I may be wrong about this and other viewpoints will be appreciated...

In a capitalist society, isn't there a large gap between the rich and the poor?

Socialism and Communism is all about equality, right? No person will be higher in society than another... Everyone is equal... We've established the fact that it works in theory, haven't we? And it's the corruption of the governing body that lets it down in practice?
I intend no offense with the following comments:

Here gentlemen, is your laymen. Are you willing to "educate" this man about your answer or are you willing to accept that any attempt to "educate" this man is in fact an attempt to brainwash him?

Point 1:Religion

The eradication of religion is justified in Communism, which is the higher stage of socialism in the process of revolution. After socialist transitions, the people will be educated to look at things in a scientific manner. Religion is not only a tool of the Capitalist world, as it was in the Feudalist world, but more importantly it is a development out of Human Beings to seek knowledge outside of their own self. This process, however has brought humans to develop science and look at things in a more materialist outlook. Communism will see this, the obliteration of Religion and the dominance of Materialist Science. The point is that Religion is metaphysical and obsolete, it has no place with a liberated working class and Religion will be struggled with in great wrangling and debate in socialism. The Workers themselves will fight religion in non-antagonistic ways, but if religion dares to be outright counter-revolutionary, it will turn to antagonism.

Point 2: Studies of Economics

Education in the area of economics is quite normal, for communist doctrine and teachings has forever asked those to question using the method of Dialectical Materialism. In this method, one can see that all things are taking quantitative steps toward qualitative leaps. However it also works in a spiral, which means things can spiral foward or backward, depending on what the leaps and steps are. We take a scientific method and analyse the conditions of all economics and we just don't leave gives, and Marx was one of the first to stress that economics are not just "Laws and Truths," in fact he stressed there are a lack of them and that is what causes the economics to be as they are. Marx's Das Kapital Volumes I-III show this greatly, and the fact is that the economy of what Marx describes resembles our world today more than the world of his time. Lenin also brings great analyse of Monopoly Capitalism in his great book "Imperialism" which shows Monopoly Capitalism as a last stage of once Progressive Capitalism, to a more intensifying Econmic Structure. This is surely the case today, for no longer is there still remnants of National Bourgeoisie representing their National Interest, as today they economy has been globalized to fit the Global Bourgeoisie and American Imperialists. And the workings of one Nation's Proletariat, and their exploitation directly affects the other.

Point 3: Dictatorship and Democracy

Dictatorship and Democracy are not abstract concepts from each other, and are a Dialectical Concept of Unity of Opposites. There can not be Dictatorship without Democracy, and there can not be Democracy without Dictatorship. They both are involved in the legitimate established State Power. The Question is who exercises State Power? The state can only be runned by class interest, whether it be Bourgeoisie or Proletariat. A Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the working class exercising dictatorship and enforcement over the Bourgeoisie and Petit-Bourgeois classes, their democracy is a democracy within that class. The Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie is a dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie over all other classes, and their Bourgeois Democracy is only a choice on how to run best their system of exploitation. Bourgeoisie Democracy is a sham to the working class, as would Proletariat Democracy be a sham to the Bourgeoisie, but that is how a class society works. Communism negates the class structure, and in the process negates Dictatorship and Democracy for there would be no class to exercise either.

This argument appears to me to be solely an exercise in futility, or rather a mere moot arrangement. To debate these two core ideologies is merely impossible because perfect examples are non-existent in the realm of history.

These are simply two ends to the same means: the general welfare and prosperity of the people. Either system may work when applied in the correct circumstances and under the proper conditions, and frankly put: neither is inherently better than the other.

It depends on your class interest, of course Bourgeoisie or Aristocrats of Labor, do not view the process of Capitalism as ineffcient. But they would be horrified about Socialism, and Vis Versa. Every nation right now runs on Capitalist principles, and is not Socialist (In the economical sense). Communism has never existed; however in our history I will mention two Socialist Nations, U.S.S.R. from 1917 - 1956, and P.R.C. 1949-1956. The years during the Russian Revolution against the Whites and thereafter, were during the ecnomic policy of N.E.P. which followed a State Capitalist doctrine, and can be considered not Socialist until 1924. The same is true with China during the years after 1949, China undergone State Capitalist building of porduction. In Soviet Union after 1956 and China after 1976, there was momentous change back into the economics of State Capitalism. In China today it resembles more of Capitalism than actually State Capitalism.

This argument appears to me to be solely an exercise in futility, or rather a mere moot arrangement. To debate these two core ideologies is merely impossible because perfect examples are non-existent in the realm of history.
It is nothing to do with history, it is to do with economics. The futility arises when people attempt to use history as a guide to the future; there is a grand difference between using careful induction and using historical events in argument. The weakest arguments are those that use historical events as justification or refutation for one or the other position, but really it is a matter of economics.


These are simply two ends to the same means: the general welfare and prosperity of the people. Either system may work when applied in the correct circumstances and under the proper conditions, and frankly put: neither is inherently better than the other.
Here is a grave misunderstanding and one that hardly makes sense: they are in fact opposite means to the same ends. Economists do not argue for either position based soley on whether they are evil or good; they argue on particular points, such as whether increasing aggregate demand will decrease unemployment, which has been shown to be wrong and agreed to be wrong by both "sides" - if we are pathetic enough to choose "sides".

It is nothing to do with history, it is to do with economics. The futility arises when people attempt to use history as a guide to the future; there is a grand difference between using careful induction and using historical events in argument. The weakest arguments are those that use historical events as justification or refutation for one or the other position, but really it is a matter of economics.

Here is a grave misunderstanding and one that hardly makes sense: they are in fact opposite means to the same ends. Economists do not argue for either position based soley on whether they are evil or good; they argue on particular points, such as whether increasing aggregate demand will decrease unemployment, which has been shown to be wrong and agreed to be wrong by both "sides" - if we are pathetic enough to choose "sides".

I was not referring to historical events but rather to the established record and pattern of human behavior. It is possible to change what one person thinks, but impossible to change one's mode of thinking.

The NS world is a hypothetical practice, a political moot if you will, therefore it is impossible to argue any one particular point, considering that situations are far from universal here.

You guys should both read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It basically sums up everything that is wrong with socialism, beats it to hell, and walks away with the looters and moochers a bloody mess behind it.

I may be wrong about this and other viewpoints will be appreciated...

In a capitalist society, isn't there a large gap between the rich and the poor?

Socialism and Communism is all about equality, right? No person will be higher in society than another... Everyone is equal... We've established the fact that it works in theory, haven't we? And it's the corruption of the governing body that lets it down in practice?

Only if you define equality as such:

A brain surgeon saves three people's lives, then collects his paycheck on the way out.

The man who washed his car earlier collects his paycheck. It is written out for the same amount.

Or as the following (and this is based on an example from Atlas Shrugged, simplified):

Hank and Orren both own steel factories. Hank has 20 furnaces active at any moment. Orren has 20 furnaces active at any moment. In one year, Hank has made five million tons of steel. Orren has made two million at the end of the same year. They submit their steel to the government, which sells the steel to a neighboring country for a total of seven hundred million dollars (for the sake of argument, I have no idea what a ton of steel is worth). Hank and Orren both receive $350,000,000 for their year's profit. Which means: Hank received only 350 million because he is more competent than Orren, who receives 350 million despite his incompetence. Hank has received 70 dollars per ton of steel, though he was a better producer and had more output than Orren, who receives $170 per gallon. Way over twice as much, though he produced way under half of Hank's output.

What is the result? In Atlas Shrugged, Hank quit and got away from the socialists alltogether, before they could continue to victimize him. But otherwise, what would happen is Hank would realize that he will make more money the less he produces; and therefore, Hank and Orren would compete to produce as little as possible, and no steel would be produced by that country, the country would have no steel export, it would go bankrupt.

Conclusion: To succeed in communism, one must fail. A is not A, reason is irrational, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, two and two make five.

Get my drift?

Point 1:Religion

The eradication of religion is justified in Communism, which is the higher stage of socialism in the process of revolution. After socialist transitions, the people will be educated to look at things in a scientific manner.
That is laughable. I encourage you to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and perhaps you will realise that not all things are as certain as the law of non-contradiction or the law of induction.


Religion is not only a tool of the Capitalist world, as it was in the Feudalist world, but more importantly it is a development out of Human Beings to seek knowledge outside of their own self. This process, however has brought humans to develop science and look at things in a more materialist outlook.
I see no justification for any of these opinions, merely dogmatic persuassions. I encourage you to take lesson from findings from social influence studies which have shown that minority opinions rarely succeed if they are dogmatic.


Communism will see this, the obliteration of Religion and the dominance of Materialist Science. The point is that Religion is metaphysical and obsolete, it has no place with a liberated working class and Religion will be struggled with in great wrangling and debate in socialism. The Workers themselves will fight religion in non-antagonistic ways, but if religion dares to be outright counter-revolutionary, it will turn to antagonism.
Would you like a megaphone for your rant? The less-interested people at the back can't quite, or more likely don't want to, hear you. So basically, you are saying that metaphysics is "obsolete" and that the only class that will be left is the "liberated working class" and "[sic]something that doesn't make any sense". Am I right? Well if so, I am also justified in asking whether you can backup these claims. More likely is that these issues are irrelevant to the way an economy is run.


Point 2: Studies of Economics

Education in the area of economics is quite normal, for communist doctrine and teachings has forever asked those to question using the method of Dialectical Materialism. In this method, one can see that all things are taking quantitative steps toward qualitative leaps. However it also works in a spiral, which means things can spiral foward or backward, depending on what the leaps and steps are. We take a scientific method and analyse the conditions of all economics and we just don't leave gives, and Marx was one of the first to stress that economics are not just "Laws and Truths," in fact he stressed there are a lack of them and that is what causes the economics to be as they are. Marx's Das Kapital Volumes I-III show this greatly, and the fact is that the economy of what Marx describes resembles our world today more than the world of his time. Lenin also brings great analyse of Monopoly Capitalism in his great book "Imperialism" which shows Monopoly Capitalism as a last stage of once Progressive Capitalism, to a more intensifying Econmic Structure. This is surely the case today, for no longer is there still remnants of National Bourgeoisie representing their National Interest, as today they economy has been globalized to fit the Global Bourgeoisie and American Imperialists. And the workings of one Nation's Proletariat, and their exploitation directly affects the other.
Please, I am talking about real education, I'm not interested in fairytails. Economics has moved on since then and any contemporary economist would agree. The battle still goes on but the weapons have changed and the technology has advanced; if you want to carry on using bayonnettes and canons then go ahead, just watch out for our heat-seeking missiles and sniper rifles.


Point 3: Dictatorship and Democracy

Dictatorship and Democracy are not abstract concepts from each other, and are a Dialectical Concept of Unity of Opposites. There can not be Dictatorship without Democracy, and there can not be Democracy without Dictatorship. They both are involved in the legitimate established State Power. The Question is who exercises State Power? The state can only be runned by class interest, whether it be Bourgeoisie or Proletariat. A Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the working class exercising dictatorship and enforcement over the Bourgeoisie and Petit-Bourgeois classes, their democracy is a democracy within that class. The Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie is a dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie over all other classes, and their Bourgeois Democracy is only a choice on how to run best their system of exploitation. Bourgeoisie Democracy is a sham to the working class, as would Proletariat Democracy be a sham to the Bourgeoisie, but that is how a class society works. Communism negates the class structure, and in the process negates Dictatorship and Democracy for there would be no class to exercise either.
I don't care to be honest, I still think capitalism is better. You're just waffling now.

I was not referring to historical events but rather to the established record and pattern of human behavior. It is possible to change what one person thinks, but impossible to change one's mode of thinking.
What does "mode of thinking" mean?

The NS world is a hypothetical practice, a political moot if you will, therefore it is impossible to argue any one particular point, considering that situations are far from universal here.
It doesn't follow that it is "impossible to argue any one particular point" because "NS is hypothetical". Does the truth of the statement "it will either rain or not-rain tomorow" become impossible to argue because NS is a hypoethetical "practise"?

You guys should both read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It basically sums up everything that is wrong with socialism, beats it to hell, and walks away with the looters and moochers a bloody mess behind it.
Please ignore the above comment. Ayn Rand in no way represents capitalism or free-market economics.

Socialist

Please ignore the above comment. Ayn Rand in no way represents capitalism or free-market economics.

Whats hilarious is that I never said she did. I said she beats socialism to hell. So the above quote is amusingly appropriate to come from a socialist.

Ayn Rand supports a historically nonexistant form of laissez-faire capitalism which she refers to as Pure Capitalism in her essays, which is the political part of her philosophy, Objectivism (not to be confused with the objectivism of the late renaissance). Its basically a separation of state and economy in the same manner as the separation of church and state. It doesnt really make too much sense to me, to tell you the truth, but I don't really care. Most readers of Atlas Shrugged pay more attention to the arguments against socialism than the pro-uber-laissez-faire arguments.

Can you justify the eradication of religion? I think not. The obvious arguments of "religion causes hate and war etc" is unreasonable and is by no means a justification for a moral viewpoint.

In Beth Gellert, religion continued its rapid decline and died out as the instrument of governance that it was organised to be. It's not a matter of justification. Children aren't brought up on lies. Just as they aren't told that the vanquished prince was put on earth to rule them, they aren't told that there's a spirit in the sky or a dude with an elephant for a head. Former religious structures are either removed or adapted for use as other things, depending on local opinion. Usually they are kept on as historical curiosities and places of learning rather than implements of rule.


What do you mean "economics are evolutionary in nature"? How can you "educate" someone about something that is questionable. You are obviously not an academic; only laymen and the general public think there is an obvious or definite answer to these sorts of questions. There are definite truths about various components of economic theory which are agreed amongst communists and capitalists but very few value judgements are agreed upon because they are always questionable. "Educating" people that one of these is correct eliminates the brilliance of true education and learning. I implore you to read The Advancement of Learning by Francis Bacon; one of his major criticisms is of learned men themselves and in particular supporters of antiquity and alchemists - he expands on this elsewhere and names them "Idols".


I don't really know where to start. It's not clear on what level you're failing to understand what I wrote, why I wrote it, what this thread is, or what Beth Gellert stands for.
Beddgelen education is not all that rigid, and tends to teach the general rather than the specific, expecting comrades to continue to think of their own accord and to continue to develop theories. Did I not indicated that Igovian theory believes economics and politics to be evolutionary, to be transitory at any point, and as such not hard and fast?


If your form of communism is based on the creation of Idols then it is a weak justification.


Well that's super, because it isn't.


The better battleground between communism and capitalism is in the classroom between those that realise the complexity of the issue and realise that economics is not a simple matter. I don't even attempt to give a full justification of capitalism in terms of economics at the moment because I know that I don't know enough about economics as of yet; I have a preference for capitalism because it gives me a better life. If communism was anything like you describe capitalism would give me a better chance of actually deciding for myself - because I will, if I find that communism/socialism is infact justified over capitalism then I am reasonable enough to accept that I am wrong. However, for now, I have seen far more evidence - I do in fact study economics, and I have read various texts on the subject - that supports capitalism and a free-market than supports socialism or a planned economy.


Well, in context, what are you getting at? I'm not an economist, either. The Nation State that I play here is one operating a communist economy, a permissive civil society, and actual democracy, rather than the sham that most of its critics have bafflingly accepted as what is best.

It may well be that -if we ignore the rating that calls ours one of the 100-odd fastest growing economies on NS earth- BG's economy is not one of the largest or most productive going. Beddgelens realise that this does not matter, as their domestic product is the necessary, not the wasteful over production of the former consumer capitalist society of the over-thrown principality. The Commonwealth internationally deals mainly in base materials, importing what does not occur in Beddgelert and exporting what does, dealing only with other advanced communist economies. It entails a level of bureaucracy and international co-ordination that I as one person can not begin to detail nor attempt to support in RP, and may not be highly efficient. Igovians argue that the former capitalist society was not nearly so efficient as it seemed, however, as it produced mountains of crap that nobody actually needed. The Igovians have different values and place importance in different aspects of civilisation than are widely understood in the real modern world.



I am confused, how is having a single party any different to a dictatorship? Besides, I find it so petty when people attempt to slander their opponents with these vulgar platitudes about capitalists or communists/socialists being fascists or bad men with evil intentions. It's not really that big-a-deal, it's just life.

We don't have any parties. The Party is another implement for dictatorship, such as the church and hereditary law previously. Beddgelens do not have representative democracy. They have direct democracy. They do not place all of their power as citizens into the hands of another. It is the complete opposite of dictatorship, where as party democracy is surprisingly close to it.
Fascism is just a tangent, an ultimately unimportant corruption of one or other of the theories along the evolutionary line, arguably communism, much as many of the countless horrors visited upon humanity by capitalist society and culture are their own passing tangents. These sorts of things result from having to learn as we go, from people not being properly educated, and from the seperate battle between personal ambition and mass freedom. That is, seperate from these economic theories about which we speak.

To most Beddgelens, today, the struggle for freedom is more important than the economic progress. It just and so happens that Beth Gellert is presently at the communist stage. Previously we were capitalists, before that there were other systems. Feudalism, slavery, hunter-gathering, and so forth. Eventually, it is generally assumed, something will replace Igovian Communism, but it is not widely expected to be hit upon even in theory for a good many years, likely generations.

To the point of this thread, Beth Gellert is communist, though it once was capitalist, and yet may be something else.

Beth Gellert is communist, and yet so shall you be.

Hieraphobia, have you ever heard of etiquette? Simply disclaiming someone's arguement as "laughable" is just using the srong man's arguement. This finds itself, a little hypocritical on yourself. For I can just say Emmanuel Kant is "fairytale" just as well as you can say Marx is "fairytale." Someone can just easily refute Kant and his whole philosphy by calling a round about useless nonesense infused with Idealism, just as Hegel had did with Kant. Kant also established the fact of dialectics being active in world; however as before he went a little idealistic in this realm. You also ridculed someone for being "offensive"; however your language in response to my and many other's post is just that, offensive as well as concieted. With such an attitude I refuse to reconize your comments till a little respect for others is established.

To someone's post that Socialism establishes "Equality of Payment." This is a falsehood. In Soviet Union for example Intellectual scientists made almost three times the amount of an ordinary worker, with Artists receiving more than any othe profession.

I intend no offense with the following comments:

Here gentlemen, is your laymen. Are you willing to "educate" this man about your answer or are you willing to accept that any attempt to "educate" this man is in fact an attempt to brainwash him?

No offense taken... Here, gentlemen is your high school student who just wants to about this topic in general?

Hardly. Investing is when you put funding into something, not when you take funding from something.

Try a better angsty anticapitalist analogy. :P

I couldn't think of any at the time, very sorry.

In Beth Gellert, religion continued its rapid decline and died out as the instrument of governance that it was organised to be. It's not a matter of justification. Children aren't brought up on lies. Just as they aren't told that the vanquished prince was put on earth to rule them, they aren't told that there's a spirit in the sky or a dude with an elephant for a head. Former religious structures are either removed or adapted for use as other things, depending on local opinion. Usually they are kept on as historical curiosities and places of learning rather than implements of rule.
Let's say for example that I believe that there is a supreme being - irrespective of the fact that I'm actually Hieraphobic Agnostic - there is no argument you can forward that can prove that I am wrong; therefore, there is no argument that can justify the eradication of my right to believe. No logical argument can prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being; such things are outside the scope of reason and thus "reason" should not be used as a weapon against it.


It's not clear on what level you're failing to understand what I wrote, why I wrote it, what this thread is, or what Beth Gellert stands for.
Beddgelen education is not all that rigid, and tends to teach the general rather than the specific, expecting comrades to continue to think of their own accord and to continue to develop theories. Did I not indicated that Igovian theory believes economics and politics to be evolutionary, to be transitory at any point, and as such not hard and fast?
I still don't know that you meant by "[sic]economics is evolutionary".


We don't have any parties. The Party is another implement for dictatorship, such as the church and hereditary law previously. Beddgelens do not have representative democracy. They have direct democracy. They do not place all of their power as citizens into the hands of another. It is the complete opposite of dictatorship, where as party democracy is surprisingly close to it.
Direct democracy has the same problem outlined by Mill in that it doesn't protect minorities. If the majority create the laws then it can be to the detriment of the minority. How does your democracy protect minorities and how does it avoid giving favour to special gorups? Hayek outlined the problems involved with "special treatment" in The Road To Serfdom. It's no good saying that special treatment wont be given to certain groups because as soon as the economy is run based on a "plan" - i.e. planned economy - then special interests are introduced.

Wow. I love this topic!

I think that everyone's opinion is really interesting and I love hearing well-thought out replies to questions like this...even if they believe differently than I.

I personally, am leaning far more towards Communism.

I believe that a people who are placed in a society where the goal of being responsible not only for yourself but for your society is clearly stated could possibly work. If the people there were shown that such immense freedom and equality couldn't be possible if they DIDN'T do their job and cooperate, people may surprise you.

But I'm just a hopeless optimist. Sorry for my rant. This is my first post and I haven't gotten to talk political for some time now. :)

liberal socialist

I was just going over all the posts here and I was wondering, is your country capitalist or communist?

i dunno
i'm either commutalist or capinist

The country of Jeff-O-Matica is currently Democratic Socialists, but given a choice between capitalism and communism, my choice is for capitalism.

I believe that a people who are placed in a society where the goal of being responsible not only for yourself but for your society is clearly stated could possibly work. If the people there were shown that such immense freedom and equality couldn't be possible if they DIDN'T do their job and cooperate, people may surprise you.

Communism could only work if people were ants. Ants, you see, have no beef with earning the same compensation despite doing more or different work than the other guy. Their salary: not getting killed by the very few in charge.

Communism would only work if humans did not have a tendency to prioritize their private interests. But except in the movies, you rarely see people sacrificing themselves to people they don't know or care about.

Progressive - we do whatever works. There is only one country, so we can't play politics with our policy.

I know a lot of you guys have Communist nations, but does anyone seriously think Communism will work?

Our system of economics could be most easily compared to your 'capitalism'. If you are strong, you survive and make money. If you are weak, you either improve yourself or die trying. All pay small taxes to fund the Ghargon and his plans to strengthen us as a people. The rest, you keep for yourself.

Capitalism works. It also involves work. That's why you're a lazy communist.

No. In communism, everyone works same hard. In capitalism, there are a few which do nothing but have everything

I know a lot of you guys have Communist nations, but does anyone seriously think Communism will work?

:rolleyes:

Communism is the only political system which works. Capitalism will be destroyed like the monarchies

No. In communism, everyone works same hard. In capitalism, there are a few which do nothing but have everything

Yeah. Since "doing nothing" is what it takes to be, and remaing a manager or executive. A-huh. Go out into the real world and try to do that. After all, if it requires doing nothing, anyone could do it, yes?

The argument that office work is not actual work is derived from pure ignorance. The argument that managers or executives have the easiest job in the world, and no responsibilities or stress, is simply laughable.

Yeah. Since "doing nothing" is what it takes to be, and remaing a manager or executive. A-huh. Go out into the real world and try to do that. After all, if it requires doing nothing, anyone could do it, yes?

The argument that office work is not actual work is derived from pure ignorance. The argument that managers or executives have the easiest job in the world, and no responsibilities or stress, is simply laughable.

Laughable as they are possibly the most stressed people on Earth. And the higher up the hierachy you go, the more stressed you find people to be. Trust me when I say executives earn every penny of their wages. I doubt my dad would have bothered trying to fill his current position if he'd been given the same amount of money to work as a security guard or a road sweeper.

No. In communism, everyone works same hard. In capitalism, there are a few which do nothing but have everything
People are not equal in capability and thus people don't try equally hard to do the same thing. For instance, I am better at mathematics than my friend; where he finds it difficult to solve trigonometric questions I find it easy and thus we do not work the "same hard". "In capitalism" there are actually very few people who do nothing and have a lot. To get anywhere - particularly starting with nothing - people have to work very hard.

Communism is the only political system which works. Capitalism will be destroyed like the monarchies
Why is that?

Why is that?

Oh, he doesn't have to explain. You see, he wouldn't bother trying to reason with you. Its a shock, I know, but apparently he has a higher understanding than this "reason" baloney. Reason is irrational and non-absolute. A is by no means A. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

And if the party says so, 2 and 2 make 5.

So everyone, stop arguing with the communists, because they reject your argument with the following: "I'm not listening."

Everyone on this forum who reasons that everyone works equally hard for the same money are labor-class people who are unexposed to actual work. The type that drop out of school at 16 because they're so confident that intellect is not needed for "real work."

Screw em. Let us elitists keep our capitalism, because we've got the guns. Don't like it? Screw off and join a commune.

(I can't believe I just said that and I'm not a republican :eek: )

I am definatly a communist. I support the distruction of capitalism, can we do that by sending in troops or advisors? Perhps we communist and socialist could form an Internationale to abolish capitalism? Telegram Quationia if a COMMUNIST would like to start it. Death to the bourgoisie! :sniper: and :mp5:

Sorry I work, unlike the capitalists, and that is why I am a communist :)

Capitalist. Hail the free market!

Slightly Communist, and it seems I'm in good company.


Why is that?

People enjoy destroying political systems (ie feudalism, hereditary monarchies) and capitalism is long overdue. If it wasn't for the USSR setting a bad example I'm sure we'd be quite socialist by now, considering the rise of labor unions and strikes in the 20s.

Edit: Oops, forgot I was still on my puppet nation.

socialist, complete communism kills citizens. But so does capitalism, so lean towards the left if your smart :)

Socialist, so leaning towards Communisim.

I lean towards small, limited government; with free open society...

Which means I have no friends on the left or right.

Oh, he doesn't have to explain. You see, he wouldn't bother trying to reason with you. Its a shock, I know, but apparently he has a higher understanding than this "reason" baloney. Reason is irrational and non-absolute. A is by no means A. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

And if the party says so, 2 and 2 make 5.

So everyone, stop arguing with the communists, because they reject your argument with the following: "I'm not listening."

Everyone on this forum who reasons that everyone works equally hard for the same money are labor-class people who are unexposed to actual work. The type that drop out of school at 16 because they're so confident that intellect is not needed for "real work."

Screw em. Let us elitists keep our capitalism, because we've got the guns. Don't like it? Screw off and join a commune.

(I can't believe I just said that and I'm not a republican :eek: )

Hear, hear! Funny that you never hear people who do shedloads of work to earn their high salary express a desire for communism, isn't it? Maybe... I don't know... they deserve that salary?!

If capitalism dies, it will be a short time before a lot of people die with it. And then in a few decades, maybe even a hundred years, when the Earth is a stagnant cesspool of low morale and poverty, capitalism will mysteriously rise again. Communism can't work, and that has nothing to do with the evil dictators that have given it a bad name.

People enjoy destroying political systems (ie feudalism, hereditary monarchies) and capitalism is long overdue. If it wasn't for the USSR setting a bad example I'm sure we'd be quite socialist by now, considering the rise of labor unions and strikes in the 20s.
What an odd thing to say. As if people "enjoyed" killing other people, which is what happens when people try to overthrow political systems. Also, I find it weird that you are still making the same mistake that Marx made in trying to predict the future with the past; not in any inductive kind of way but in an "historical event" kind of way. Did you know, that some time last century some mad man decided to murder uncountable numbers of Jews? does this mean that it will happen again? I certainly hope not, and I would be very careful asserting that it will. This is of course very different to induction - particularly experimental induction - where the same instance can be repeated, unlike historical events.

Sorry I work, unlike the capitalists, and that is why I am a communist

I bet you also failed all of your high school classes and work in a coal mine.

Have fun with that.

If you are old enough to be my father, you are either mentally challenged or English is not your first language. I assumed you had to be American to be so grossly pro-capitalist, and therefore you should be able to speak better English.
I'm a SWEDE!!

I guess you can only build communism without people then :-P
:p :p :D

:rolleyes:

Communism is the only political system which works. Capitalism will be destroyed like the monarchies
Can you show me a nation where communism have ever worked??? No political freedom and slave labor that is what communism is!! The ruling poarty lives like they are not part of the country!! Look at China, Sovjet Rumainia, Cuba and so on. Cummunism DOSE NOT WORK. The fudelism from the 1100-1300 is better then communism of today. But one this is for sure I don't want to live in any of them. ;) Communism just sucks out the will to come up with new idea, and the nation will be stagnents and the country will slide down in to anarky. People that think communism is so great why don't you try to move to north Korea, Cuba or China, Live ther for let say 10 years and then tell me; "IT'S SO GREAT!!" No instead you living conforbly and talk about communism as a model!! Remember with communism YOU WILL LOOSE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE NOW!! That include the 'puter that you are typing on now.

Can you show me a nation where communism have ever worked??? No political freedom and slave labor that is what communism is!! The ruling poarty lives like they are not part of the country!! Look at China, Sovjet Rumainia, Cuba and so on. Cummunism DOSE NOT WORK. The fudelism from the 1100-1300 is better then communism of today. But one this is for sure I don't want to live in any of them. ;) Communism just sucks out the will to come up with new idea, and the nation will be stagnents and the country will slide down in to anarky. People that think communism is so great why don't you try to move to north Korea, Cuba or China, Live ther for let say 10 years and then tell me; "IT'S SO GREAT!!" No instead you living conforbly and talk about communism as a model!! Remember with communism YOU WILL LOOSE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE NOW!! That include the 'puter that you are typing on now.


The nation you responded to was ignorant in calling communism a political system when it is an economic system, but your responce was equally ignorant. Congratulations.

The nation you responded to was ignorant in calling communism a political system when it is an economic system, but your responce was equally ignorant. Congratulations.


Thats easy enough to say. I could just as easily say "OFMG UR WRONG LOL."

Please try supporting your argument. And to be fair, you too, hagge.

Thats easy enough to say. I could just as easily say "OFMG UR WRONG LOL."

Please try supporting your argument. And to be fair, you too, hagge.
He doesn't really need to back up the claim that communism is an economic system and not a political system since it is simply correct.

He doesn't really need to back up the claim that communism is an economic system and not a political system since it is simply correct.

Exactly. You have every right to say “I don’t support communism” or “I think communism is bad,” but if you’re just a dumb ass claiming “communism is slavery!” or “communism is innately evil!” then you’re just wrong.

Communism is an economic system. There can be forced labor under communism, but that can also happen (and has for a long, long time) under capitalism. Such blatant ignorance does not deserve much of a reply from me. Hieraphobia got it right – I don’t need to back anything up if you know a thing about the two economic systems. Therefore, Unnilania, you could not just say "OFMG UR WRONG LOL” with any intellectual merit.

My holy empire is capitalist and proud of it. Anyone who's read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" shows that although communism is a nice idea it doesn't actually work :sniper:

Therefore, Unnilania, you could not just say "OFMG UR WRONG LOL” with any intellectual merit.
Actually, thats exactly what I was saying. I can very easily say "OMFG UR WRONG LOL," but it would be absurd. My point was, it is just as absurd to say, "but your responce was equally ignorant." without actually defending your point.

He doesn't really need to back up the claim that communism is an economic system and not a political system since it is simply correct.
Thats not what I was asking him to back up.

Thats not what I was asking him to back up.
What was it that you were asking to be backed up?

The nation you responded to was ignorant in calling communism a political system when it is an economic system, but your responce was equally ignorant. Congratulations.

He didn't qualify that.

Ahem ... the small "communist" communities worked, maybe, it is that the communist states that have existed and do exist are singe party police states Maybe it is that single party police states do not work.

Furthermore, these states did not abide by the original political map planned. Marx proposed that communist, would result in democracy. Lenin, added bad connotations, and lead an example for other commmunist states. That not real communism.

Communism with democracy, is possible.

Ahem ... the small "communist" communities worked,

Small community governance and governance of nationstates and states are two pretty much separate things. Any form of government can work with some small group of people.

Communism

My nation is communist, however we allow certain people to own businesses as long as they contribute a good portion of their income to the government.

Ahem ... the small "communist" communities worked, maybe, it is that the communist states that have existed and do exist are singe party police states Maybe it is that single party police states do not work.

Furthermore, these states did not abide by the original political map planned. Marx proposed that communist, would result in democracy. Lenin, added bad connotations, and lead an example for other commmunist states. That not real communism.

Communism with democracy, is possible.

I'll work to destroy it. I love Capitalism and the system loves me. But we don't have a pure Capitalist state. Prosperity for those in the Right!

Capitalists Unite

My nation is communist, however we allow certain people to own businesses as long as they contribute a good portion of their income to the government.


Statism. Never works in a communist or a Capitalist country.

Very few people get the oppurtunity to own business. The privilege of being able to own a business is used as a reward for certain good deeds done for the government.

Communist

Very few people get the oppurtunity to own business. The privilege of being able to own a business is used as a reward for certain good deeds done for the government.

That's a great way to get a crappy economy dominated by a bunch of yes-men government lackeys who don't have a clue (or incentive) to make a profitable business.

That's a great way to get a crappy economy dominated by a bunch of yes-men government lackeys who don't have a clue (or incentive) to make a profitable business.

I agree. No incentive to work when the only route to success is politics. What do you get with politics? The illusion of productivity and forward movement to mediocracy.

Free markets provide the best reward for work, and they are a requirment for freedom. The ultimate goal of being independence of the mind, body, and spirit.

ok
so hu is capitilist and hu in communist here?

ime confuzzled :confused: :confused: :confused:

Capitalist Stratocracy. Combine the Militerism of North Korea with the economic policies of Steve Forbes and you have Luciferius.

Kontrina: I am a capitalizt.

Unnilania:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagge
Can you show me a nation where communism have ever worked??? No political freedom and slave labor that is what communism is!! The ruling poarty lives like they are not part of the country!! Look at China, Sovjet Rumainia, Cuba and so on. Cummunism DOSE NOT WORK. The fudelism from the 1100-1300 is better then communism of today. But one this is for sure I don't want to live in any of them. Communism just sucks out the will to come up with new idea, and the nation will be stagnents and the country will slide down in to anarky. People that think communism is so great why don't you try to move to north Korea, Cuba or China, Live ther for let say 10 years and then tell me; "IT'S SO GREAT!!" No instead you living conforbly and talk about communism as a model!! Remember with communism YOU WILL LOOSE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE NOW!! That include the 'puter that you are typing on now.

The nation you responded to was ignorant in calling communism a political system when it is an economic system, but your responce was equally ignorant. Congratulations.

What Hagge said was ignorant. What he said boils down to "I don't like communism" and a hail of other platitudes that people are prone to say about communism. He, quite frankly, provides no argument for his assertions and his attempt at using examples was a disguise for an apparent lack of knowledge about communism - but, of course, for all I know he is a professor of Economics.

As a supporter of capitalism I would prefer such responses to not be put forward as a representation of capitalist thought. It denigrates from the true arguments for capitalism; as does the so-called communist arguments of capitalism being evil and other such nonsense-arguments.

Although, I have to admit, it is the popularised versions of communist thought that I dislike since there are various ways of arguing for the same point. It could very reasonably be argued that capitalism is somewhat evil yet it is plain to any reasonable person that there are better ways to argue for this conclusion than to simply shout it as loud as you can. Such arguments require justification for a moral system which would take a great deal longer than the single sentences typed-up by the majority of laymen supporters.

Capitalist. Very, very Capitalist.

The united states has it's money in every part of the world, it is the single richest country in the world, whith it's wallet smothering the globe like a placenta choking a baby. I hope to god some of you will get the analogy... But anyway, let's look at the good ole US as a model. We used to be complete capitalism, then the great depression happened and taught us that we can't treat people like shit and judge them only by their potential to make money. So thanks to ye good ole FDR we married Socialism and Capitalism. We have free enterprise up the wazzoo, but also have social welfare programs and social security retirement things. Of course thats been sucked up and fucked up by the Bush administration, but lets not get into politics... What i'm trying to say is that outright capitalism is monstrous, and outright communism is too idealistic. The solution would appear to be to marry the two, as the united states did. And it seems to have worked. Europe is doing something of the sort as well, but they tend to lean more towards the socialist end. One more thing, the poorly stated argument the guy a coupla posts above me had about communism leading to anarchy is partially right. When the communist-socialist theorists concieved the idea, they intended for Communism to be an intermediate step where people are governed by the party leaders which they should elect, which should do little more than give a direction to the communes. The communes would ultimately learn to run themselves, and the need for government would be absent. This would lead to a communism anarchism. Not anarchy like terror and bombs and everyone killing eachother, which is the ignorant view of anarchy. But anarchy as in no government, just pure self-sufficiency without the need for interferece by the higher-ups. But of course, like someone before me said human greed gets in the way. The other thing is that the reason communism has failed thus far is because it was applied to states of borderline povery level. Marx writes in his manifesto that Communism should be applied to an already well-developed and highly industrialized country... like Germany. He was a German, duh. :)

I would say mine is communisticly capitalist

When all men in the world stops thinking too much about theyrselfes the communism will take part in governments and the world will be heaven

unfortunately that will never happen, we call that human nature :mad:

Revolutionary Communist

*Hints at the nation name*

3 communistic country's left on this earth, so there ain't so much to choose from. ;)

Democratic Socialist although I think a change to slightly more communistic approaches would be the way for my nation to go. My opinion on the whole communism/capitalism is that communism is an ideal albeit a far away one, but to live in an entirely connumist world would be amazing, the really of it is that it would probably never happen!

The united states has it's money in every part of the world, it is the single richest country in the world, whith it's wallet smothering the globe like a placenta choking a baby. I hope to god some of you will get the analogy... But anyway, let's look at the good ole US as a model. We used to be complete capitalism, then the great depression happened and taught us that we can't treat people like shit and judge them only by their potential to make money. So thanks to ye good ole FDR we married Socialism and Capitalism. We have free enterprise up the wazzoo, but also have social welfare programs and social security retirement things. Of course thats been sucked up and fucked up by the Bush administration, but lets not get into politics... What i'm trying to say is that outright capitalism is monstrous, and outright communism is too idealistic. The solution would appear to be to marry the two, as the united states did. And it seems to have worked. Europe is doing something of the sort as well, but they tend to lean more towards the socialist end. One more thing, the poorly stated argument the guy a coupla posts above me had about communism leading to anarchy is partially right. When the communist-socialist theorists concieved the idea, they intended for Communism to be an intermediate step where people are governed by the party leaders which they should elect, which should do little more than give a direction to the communes. The communes would ultimately learn to run themselves, and the need for government would be absent. This would lead to a communism anarchism. Not anarchy like terror and bombs and everyone killing eachother, which is the ignorant view of anarchy. But anarchy as in no government, just pure self-sufficiency without the need for interferece by the higher-ups. But of course, like someone before me said human greed gets in the way. The other thing is that the reason communism has failed thus far is because it was applied to states of borderline povery level. Marx writes in his manifesto that Communism should be applied to an already well-developed and highly industrialized country... like Germany. He was a German, duh. :)

Holla?.. hablo espanol? anyway, you guys, please.. Stop bragging about america, America lost it's self within 10 years america isn't a world power anymore, although i'm a capitalist, the communistec (little capitalistis) People's Republic of Chine will be the Next superpower, if you follow the news a little you will find out that 2 weeks ago China invested 700 billion dollars in America.. If your country is soo wealthy and powerfull they would never accepted the money from china cause that would look like a loss, Because the Anti communistic America had to receive funds of The communistic China. 3 weeks ago I thought that America would rule teh world one day, but that will never happen, cause no, no Economy of any country will be able to stop the Chinees peeps. And since America had a debt of 2 trillion dollars, and it's rising. America will slowely fade into the shadows of the fallen nations like the Sovjet republic, France after world war 1, You guys lost, accept your defeat peeps.. Now we have to bow to the Chinees Communists :(:|

On a random note, is anyone here fascist?

ps. dutch Union, even if there's only 3 communist countries left, combine their power, probably can beat most of the Western capitalist countries. (If Nuclear weapons or any other kind of WMD were negligible and disarmed on both sides)

I'm fascist, but my economy is moreso capitalist.

Unnilania:



What Hagge said was ignorant. What he said boils down to "I don't like communism" and a hail of other platitudes that people are prone to say about communism. He, quite frankly, provides no argument for his assertions and his attempt at using examples was a disguise for an apparent lack of knowledge about communism - but, of course, for all I know he is a professor of Economics.

As a supporter of capitalism I would prefer such responses to not be put forward as a representation of capitalist thought. It denigrates from the true arguments for capitalism; as does the so-called communist arguments of capitalism being evil and other such nonsense-arguments.

Although, I have to admit, it is the popularised versions of communist thought that I dislike since there are various ways of arguing for the same point. It could very reasonably be argued that capitalism is somewhat evil yet it is plain to any reasonable person that there are better ways to argue for this conclusion than to simply shout it as loud as you can. Such arguments require justification for a moral system which would take a great deal longer than the single sentences typed-up by the majority of laymen supporters.

You're blowing it way out of proportion. He said "you are ignorant" without providing any additional explanation. Had he said, "Your argument is ignorant because you do not support it." I would have been satisfied. I was making an ironic point-- that he was ridiculing the other guy's argument with the same sort of fallacy as he was ridiculing. Thats all. No biggie.

If your country is soo wealthy and powerfull they would never accepted the money from china cause that would look like a loss, Because the Anti communistic America had to receive funds of The communistic China. 3 weeks ago I thought that America would rule teh world one day, but that will never happen, cause no, no Economy of any country will be able to stop the Chinees peeps. And since America had a debt of 2 trillion dollars, and it's rising. America will slowely fade into the shadows of the fallen nations like the Sovjet republic, France after world war 1, You guys lost, accept your defeat peeps.. Now we have to bow to the Chinees Communists

Your argument seems to be that because America has a large national debt, america sucks. Guess what? On the grand scheme, 700 billion is small change. You think we're a bad country because we borrowed money from you? That's like saying I'm a bad person because I borrowed 20 bucks till thursday from my friend Joe. Thats like saying my uncle is a bad businessman because he borrowed three hundred thousand dollars from the bank to start a restaurant in Newport.

We are going to repay the debt, of course. All debts must be paid, or they are not debts, but gifts or tribute. But currently, we are at a state of war. It's not a war that I can, in my heart of hearts, agree with, but whether I like it or not, it costs money. If money is being spent on war, no money is spent at home. So we borrow money from China to help our domestic life. Its like borrowing 20 bucks till thursday--I have a steady job, I'll pay Joe back, but my kid really really wants a brand new bicycle and his birthday is coming up.

So yeah, you say we borrowed 700 billion dollars? We'll probably end up paying China back with interest-- probably the uninflated equivalent of 850 billion in fifteen years or so, when we have a president with the slightest sense of economics. If you stick inflation in there, it may be 900 billion to a trillion, depending on how badly Bush screws us up between tomorrow and the end of january 2009. but in the mean time, we will have used the money for something that is worth the interest.

In the bicycle example, I could pay Joe back 25 bucks interest. Having the bicycle in time for my kid's birthday is worth 5 extra bucks, right?

Sorry if my explanation is dumb/incorrect/confusing.

Oh, and by the way: America does indeed suck, but not because of economics--its the politics that suck. OMFG LETS PUT GOD IN SCHOOL ITS NOT LIKE THER R ATHEISTS OR JOOZ OR MUZZELMEN OR INFEEDAYLES OR NUTHIN. NYUK NYUK.

neither. Mine is a mixture a fascism and individualism as i dislike captilist and don't like the communist ideas of equality

Jibea: Are you evil or something? ;)

Well to draw from Arthur C. Clarke's "Rama Revealed",

The Octospider colony could be arguably considered "true communism", where the motivation (setting aside the technological aspects) being to sort its denizens into jobs that they are most suited to, in terms of the level of enjoyment that they get from the job and their overall motivation and skill they have in that aspect.

Say, there is a hypothetical "Joe". "Joe" is continually fascinated by robotics, and aspires to understand and create them. So, they plunk him down working in robotics. Whilst "Joe" might not be getting the same money-for-work as say, "Bob", who works as an assembly worker, he would be happy in his line, and should he later feel a need for a change and acquires different tastes, he could be moved.

Now, say "Peter" is gifted in cooking, but he doesn't enjoy it, or feel motivated. So, when offered a position as a chef, he might decide that he really doesn't have a passion for it. So, he accepts a secondary or interim job until he discovers his "true calling", be it art or exploration, or even garbage disposal!

Now, others just would not feel comfortable with this, and as such, they were allowed to leave the community before they are intergrated into the system. Simply put, the "Alternates" (as put by Arthur C. Clarke) were allowed to live out their lives in free economy and an essentially capitalist society.

To weigh it up, you could say:

Communism is like three people building a radio together, so they can all listen to it. They are all directed towards a single goal, but they don't have as many radios, and the overall quality is very dependant on the effort of all 3.
However, when expertise is combined and shared, as the ideal situation would be, someone who works hard but doesn't know how to make a radio is helped by someone who knows how to make one but lacks good eyesight, for example, and the both of them might double, or even treble their effectiveness.

Capitalism is like a group of three people making a radio each for themselves. They are rewarded with a radio each, but they would have to bicker over parts and might end up with less of a radio as a result. They are each only awarded with the result of their work, and thus, the harder working ones might feel more satisfied. But a problem with this, is that Person A, might decide he wants a better radio than B and C, so he breaks them while they're gone. Then, when they come back, the situation escalates and they all end up with poor radios.

Whilst I obviously appear to be strongly supporting communism, the plain and simple fact is that this is speaking from the calculating method that I use when playing any simulation. I have to admit, I'm playing towards communism at the moment, but as emotions don't come into play during games with me most of the time, the decisions I'm making are probably unrealistic. Whilst understanding that the concept of true communism is most likely optimal, the truth is, that in real life my, and most other people's temprement is completely unsuited to communism. True communism may emerge with time, when the understanding of the human brain advances to the point where competitive spirit can be more or less nullified, the communist view of directing many to a single goal may work.

But unaccompanied by a change in the psyche of those who participate in it, communism will never work.

In short, I play as a true communist state in games, but with the knowlege that I (and the human psyche) most likely would not be suited to ideal communism should it actually happen in real life, at least not at this stage.

The people of Kathvania obviously choose communism over capitalism any day of the week, although both communism and capitalism in their pure forms would never be benifical to the people.

Oopsie should of written something longer like Hakuraki's essay(is that like Hakuna Matata?)

Communist. Capitalism oils its machinery with the blood of its workers and gives nothing back to the society it takes so, so, much out of.

Wow communism seams to have a very large problem I just wonder if everyone who serports it understands it. I by the way serport it strongly. Communism as i see it has two major advantages; its fair, everyone (in therory) is equil and it means that if done properly then it would be a very efficent system. Unfortunatly it has one major problem that is humans we are greedy and competative this is not good if we want to strive for communism. Hopefully we will learn to be nicer to people and be less materialistic.
As (i think it was) Winston Churchil said "The world is to young for communism and to old for fashism"
By the way has anyone set up a communist region if so i would like to join if not one should be set up.

You're blowing it way out of proportion. He said "you are ignorant" without providing any additional explanation. Had he said, "Your argument is ignorant because you do not support it." I would have been satisfied. I was making an ironic point-- that he was ridiculing the other guy's argument with the same sort of fallacy as he was ridiculing. Thats all. No biggie.



Your argument seems to be that because America has a large national debt, america sucks. Guess what? On the grand scheme, 700 billion is small change. You think we're a bad country because we borrowed money from you? That's like saying I'm a bad person because I borrowed 20 bucks till thursday from my friend Joe. Thats like saying my uncle is a bad businessman because he borrowed three hundred thousand dollars from the bank to start a restaurant in Newport.

We are going to repay the debt, of course. All debts must be paid, or they are not debts, but gifts or tribute. But currently, we are at a state of war. It's not a war that I can, in my heart of hearts, agree with, but whether I like it or not, it costs money. If money is being spent on war, no money is spent at home. So we borrow money from China to help our domestic life. Its like borrowing 20 bucks till thursday--I have a steady job, I'll pay Joe back, but my kid really really wants a brand new bicycle and his birthday is coming up.

So yeah, you say we borrowed 700 billion dollars? We'll probably end up paying China back with interest-- probably the uninflated equivalent of 850 billion in fifteen years or so, when we have a president with the slightest sense of economics. If you stick inflation in there, it may be 900 billion to a trillion, depending on how badly Bush screws us up between tomorrow and the end of january 2009. but in the mean time, we will have used the money for something that is worth the interest.

In the bicycle example, I could pay Joe back 25 bucks interest. Having the bicycle in time for my kid's birthday is worth 5 extra bucks, right?

Sorry if my explanation is dumb/incorrect/confusing.

America's debt is beyond the fase of repaying..

US debt is continual... We've had debt since the late 1800's, and short of the Libertarians, and back under Perot's original campaign, it has not been made an issue... The average american citizen does not care about the debt, and has no plans on what to do about it...

Of course, this issue has nothing to do with Capitalism, since neither party responsible for this massive debt (Dems and Reps) are capitalists at heart... And the one true Capitalistic minded party, the Libertarians, never get control.

Communism as i see it has two major advantages; its fair, everyone (in therory) is equil and it means that if done properly then it would be a very efficent system.
What is fair?

America's debt is beyond the fase of repaying..
That's a rather sweeping statement. Have you never wondered why inflation is a key issue for most governments?

Democratic Socialist

[QUOTE=Mantinoid]Don't you all agree that communism is the best? QUOTE]

Actually, "Hakurabi" was the name of a very old BASIC country simulation, where you bought land (with bushels), planted it with bushels, and fed your people with them.

It essentially went like this:

"You harvested [2000] bushels from your land"

"How mush land do you want to buy?"
"Land is 50 bushels an acre"
["You have 2000 bushels"]-The bushels count is always shown.
You type in how many to buy, and the game subtracts that amount X 50 from your stores.

"How much land do you want to sell?"
"Land is worth 50 bushels an acre"
Then you type in how many to sell, aand the game obviously adds it to you

"How many acres do you want to plant?"
You type in how many you want to plant, at 1 bushel per acre. This affects how many you get next round.

"How many bushels do you give to your people?"
"You have {5000} people"
"1 bushel feeds 20 people"
You type in how many you give to your people.

Then the game would say the result of the shortage/excess of food and its effect on your population (who also affect the amount of bushels you get later). Then it loops back. If you sell all your land, you lose. As far as I know, there is no way to win.

I played it quite a while ago, so some of the wording might not be exact.

Simply put, it is like the endless struggle towards a single goal, In this case, "bushels". With communism, it could be personal freedom, even if at the cost of rewards for work. In capitalism, one could say it revolves around the pursuit of assets in order to obtain what one wants.

Capitalism is like a group of three people making a radio each for themselves. They are rewarded with a radio each, but they would have to bicker over parts and might end up with less of a radio as a result. They are each only awarded with the result of their work, and thus, the harder working ones might feel more satisfied. But a problem with this, is that Person A, might decide he wants a better radio than B and C, so he breaks them while they're gone. Then, when they come back, the situation escalates and they all end up with poor radios.
This analogy only works if A, B, and C are equally capable of building good radios. Lets say A is good at building radios, but B and C are incompetent ninnies. A succeeds at making his radio. B and C make piles of bolts and electronic equipment that emit a faint screeching sound.

Capitalism: A sells his radio for 25 dollars, B and C sell theirs for 5 dollars each. A succeeds because A is competent, B and C fail because they are incompetent.

Communism: A, B, and C are each rewarded 12 dollars for their radios. A put lots of effort into what he did and was compensated for less effort. B and C put no effort in, and were rewarded for little work and their incompetence. Therefore, putting no effort into what you are doing is rewarded as equally as putting work into your work. So it's ok to be lazy. In fact, its better to be lazy, because working hard will not reward you at all.

Say, there is a hypothetical "Joe". "Joe" is continually fascinated by robotics, and aspires to understand and create them. So, they plunk him down working in robotics. Whilst "Joe" might not be getting the same money-for-work as say, "Bob", who works as an assembly worker, he would be happy in his line, and should he later feel a need for a change and acquires different tastes, he could be moved.
Working hard and receiving no extra compensation, Joe is going to work 10 hours a day while Bob works five, Joe is going to eat the same meal as Bob, sleep in a similar bed as Bob, but Joe is going to be much more tired and stressed out than Bob, with no opportunity to buy products which will enhance his comfort. He's going to have much less time to spend with his two children. And assuming that the government provides Joe and Bob enough money to go to an amusement park, Joe is going to be so loaded down with work that his kids will never get to go on the Whirly Bird. Bob will have plenty of time at the end of the day to take his kids to see the rides.

How happy Joe must be.

Communist you damned boushe'se PIGS!

......that would probably have gone over better if I knew how to spell boushe'se.

and if I knew what it meant. :)

That's a great way to get a crappy economy dominated by a bunch of yes-men government lackeys who don't have a clue (or incentive) to make a profitable business.

Perhaps...but it is nice to have people who will agree to everything you say without having to torture them.

My nation is very communist. Scandinavian Liberal Paradise is what it is right now.

Perhaps...but it is nice to have people who will agree to everything you say without having to torture them.

How does restricting who can own businesses get people to agree to everything you say? Just because they're yes-men (the one who own your government handout businesses) doesn't even mean they agree. They're just looking out for themselves.

I'd rather have disagreement but economic strength, than agreement and economic weakness. Especially since agreement is only really valued by the likes of democrats and communists. I don't care who agrees with me... I have the power!

How does restricting who can own businesses get people to agree to everything you say? Just because they're yes-men (the one who own your government handout businesses) doesn't even mean they agree. They're just looking out for themselves.

I'd rather have disagreement but economic strength, than agreement and economic weakness. Especially since agreement is only really valued by the likes of democrats and communists. I don't care who agrees with me... I have the power!

Yes, and since they're looking out for themselves, they wouldn't dare oppose me.

Yes, and since they're looking out for themselves, they wouldn't dare oppose me.

I get it.

But you leave yourself open to strong outsiders who may oppose you, and over whom you have no control because your nation is run by people who only look out for themselves (instead of, for example, you or your nation).

I dont think ClemsonsTigers cares if his government works. Its supposed to amuse him, no more.

By the way, Tigers, Ayn Rand just telephoned me from her grave. She says she hates you.

However, would Joe really feel as satisfied with his work if he just stood there all day, making the exact same hole, in the exact same type of good, every 10 seconds, for 5 hours every day. Whilst Joe might have to work 10 hours, and Bob only 5, Joe might need to work only 5 days a week and has holidays, as opposed to Bob's 5 hours, every single day, save maybe one or two when unavoidable.

Joe would still have to work 2350 hours a year (assuming 5 wk worth of holidays total) whereas Bob would work 1820 hours a year, but Joe would have whole DAYs off, and Bob would be limited as to how much he could do during his leisure time.

Now, back to the A, B and C situation - If B and C do not work, the radio might still sell for the $36 that you mentioned, but the primary motivation is that if they make a much better one together, they ALL get a larger share. Say D, E and F are all hard working (very rare, I know.), they might make a radio that sells for $75, and they all get $25.

To combine them, say Joe works hard, and manages to develop some revolutionary new product, that could result in a worldwide change, he could either try to sell it himself, or turn it over to the government.

A) He hides his discovery and tries to get away with it - Assuming he doesn't get caught, he would most likely be unable to organise enough people to get his invention to the market, and will most likely be cheated out of it by someone else with more business sense.

B) He turns it over to the hypothetical perfect communist government - Now the government would make sure he is appropriately recognised, then set Bob and his colleagues to work making it. It may or may not succeed, but if it does, the country as a whole becomes richer, and EVERYONE gets more money.

Communism is great in theory but it never really be fully enacted. Even if it was, it would be very hard to maintain social freedoms and satisfaction. On the other hand with capitalism, a huge inbalance of wealth is created. It's easier though.

This analogy only works if A, B, and C are equally capable of building good radios. Lets say A is good at building radios, but B and C are incompetent ninnies. A succeeds at making his radio. B and C make piles of bolts and electronic equipment that emit a faint screeching sound.

Capitalism: A sells his radio for 25 dollars, B and C sell theirs for 5 dollars each. A succeeds because A is competent, B and C fail because they are incompetent.

Communism: A, B, and C are each rewarded 12 dollars for their radios. A put lots of effort into what he did and was compensated for less effort. B and C put no effort in, and were rewarded for little work and their incompetence. Therefore, putting no effort into what you are doing is rewarded as equally as putting work into your work. So it's ok to be lazy. In fact, its better to be lazy, because working hard will not reward you at all.


Working hard and receiving no extra compensation, Joe is going to work 10 hours a day while Bob works five, Joe is going to eat the same meal as Bob, sleep in a similar bed as Bob, but Joe is going to be much more tired and stressed out than Bob, with no opportunity to buy products which will enhance his comfort. He's going to have much less time to spend with his two children. And assuming that the government provides Joe and Bob enough money to go to an amusement park, Joe is going to be so loaded down with work that his kids will never get to go on the Whirly Bird. Bob will have plenty of time at the end of the day to take his kids to see the rides.

How happy Joe must be.

Along with what Hakurabi said.

Your first example.

Communisim can work to some extent if the Government set's quotas.

Ie, A is competent, and therefore fufills the expected requirements and gets 12 dollars. The other two are not, and get nothing, so therefore cannot be lazy as they cannot afford it.
(I was under the impression that Quotas was part of a Communist system.)

Joe and Bob. Joe and Bob are doing the same work, but differing amounts of it, Because Bob is not putting as much time into his work, the likelyhood of it ever being as good as Joes, and hence up to the Quota (Which would obviously be quite high) is nowhere near as much. Joe may be stressed, but his kids survive. And if Joe is actually working extra, what is he working on if Bob has already finished, and the impression I receive is that both have fufilled the Quota? Both have fufilled the obligation, why is Joe Working on?

If he cannot achieve the Quota in his government, which cannot support him ,then there is something wrong with the government. but one would assume, in particular in a Democractic Communist nation, Joe could receive support to do his job better and not have to work as much.

Finally, this analogy I've seen a couple of times, the Educated, intelligent worker versus the Idiot, the garbage cleaner or some other unenviable job.

I ask you this. Which is more important? without the Intelligent, educated workers, we cannot have industries that require intelligences, nor great leaps of science, etc etc.

But without the Garbage cleaner, would the streets not become filthy, befouled and a breeding pit for ill health? Everybody has their place in a maintaining a stable society - why should they not be rewarded as such?

That is what Communisim asks.

Finally, I noticed some people have been talking about Socialisim and Communisim in the Economy. I ask you this - Isn't the current world lacking in any pure Capitalist economy? Isn't every economy that works a Capitlist one with Socialist elements thrown in?

Communisim can work to some extent if the Government set's quotas.


Yeah. Like the USSR did, it worked like magic. Well no, it worked "to some extent," which is a way of saying it did not cause time and existence itself to break down, merely the Russian economy and hegemony.


I ask you this. Which is more important? without the Intelligent, educated workers, we cannot have industries that require intelligences, nor great leaps of science, etc etc.

But without the Garbage cleaner, would the streets not become filthy, befouled and a breeding pit for ill health? Everybody has their place in a maintaining a stable society - why should they not be rewarded as such?

Agree! And that's one way in which capitalism produces stable societies, with our hideous "classes" that Marx wished would just disappear.

I'm pretty much ignoring you and the previous post's examples about the Perfect Communist Society. Comparing an imperfect capitalist society with a perfect any society is not quite fair, is it? Of COURSE the perfect society will be, well, perfect.

But you damned communists can't just keep thumping your utopian marxist bible visions as a way to convince people how good communism is. I could name hypothetical governments in which we are all food for brain-eating overlords with perfect societies, but that wouldn't make you suddenly start voting for brain-eating overlords like Nader, would it?

However, would Joe really feel as satisfied with his work if he just stood there all day, making the exact same hole, in the exact same type of good, every 10 seconds, for 5 hours every day. Whilst Joe might have to work 10 hours, and Bob only 5, Joe might need to work only 5 days a week and has holidays, as opposed to Bob's 5 hours, every single day, save maybe one or two when unavoidable.

Joe would still have to work 2350 hours a year (assuming 5 wk worth of holidays total) whereas Bob would work 1820 hours a year, but Joe would have whole DAYs off, and Bob would be limited as to how much he could do during his leisure time.
You're making things up. The government wouldn't give Joe time off because they recognize he is better than Bob. They would therefore want him working harder and harder. You are totally bullshitting the days-off idea.

But without the Garbage cleaner, would the streets not become filthy, befouled and a breeding pit for ill health? Everybody has their place in a maintaining a stable society - why should they not be rewarded as such?
Sure, in that example, where Joe is a creator and Bob is a Garbageman, they are both important to the system. But Joe is doing harder work than Bob. If you don't compensate Joe more than Bob, then Joe is going to see that people who do less work than himself make the same amount of money, and he is going to start slacking off. Why, Joe, would you slack off, even if your extra work is uncompensated? It is because nobody wants to work for nothing. He is not being paid for his extra work, and he owes absolutely nothing to the Government which is enslaving him.

Now, back to the A, B and C situation - If B and C do not work, the radio might still sell for the $36 that you mentioned, but the primary motivation is that if they make a much better one together, they ALL get a larger share. Say D, E and F are all hard working (very rare, I know.), they might make a radio that sells for $75, and they all get $25.
Why would A want to work with a pair of idiots and get the same amount of money out of it? With those two bogging him down, it would take much longer, and he wouldn't get anything more out of it. He could spend the same time he spends with those two morons dragging at his heels instead making a radio that is even better than the two idiots could possibly comprehend.

Your argument depends entirely on the premise that B and C have anything whatsoever to contribute.

the country as a whole becomes richer, and EVERYONE gets more money.
A) The inventor owes nothing to the country, so that is little reward.
B) Yeah, everybody gets his rightfully earned money. I bet he's really happy about that.

Ie, A is competent, and therefore fufills the expected requirements and gets 12 dollars. The other two are not, and get nothing, so therefore cannot be lazy as they cannot afford it.
Great. Now you're coming back full circle to capitalism. The main difference between your example and capitalism: in yours, the competent worker is rewarded less than he would be in free-market. So I ask you this question: why would any competent person favor communism over capitalism?

But you damned communists can't just keep thumping your utopian marxist bible visions as a way to convince people how good communism is. I could name hypothetical governments in which we are all food for brain-eating overlords with perfect societies, but that wouldn't make you suddenly start voting for brain-eating overlords like Nader, would it?
Bravo!

By the way, all of your systems of government are crap.

In my ideal government, people are paid heaps of money to lay around and get fat, and they are given five meals a day and free women.

You honestly can't argue with that.

[/sarcasm]

My country is capatalist

I am amused by the way you spell capatalist.

Hi. it still seams communism is winning. Who hear has actualy read the 'Communist Manifesto' (apologies for the bad spelling at least I think its spelt wrong I can never tell Im disleksic this may not be a good excuse but its the only one I have got) I would like to but have not been able to find a copy.

There is no such thing as a perfect goverment they just don't exist what 'the world' must try to do is find the best one that works for them.

I belive that the problem with past 'communist stats' has been the fact that they all (as far as I Know) have started with violent revolution this aleanates sertain members of the sosioty that they have revolted against and forms a center for resistance/anti state propoganda. But if the communist party leadership where asked for by 'the people' then i don't see how there could be any oposition that would would have any popular backing. What I am serjesting is a form of 'democratic communisum' that is one that is at tfirst voted lergiatamatly in to goverment (like the Nazi party 1933) and then can act as a commmunisum

What do you think?

communist of course!

Uh, communism is winning where? And winning what?

And I find it amusing that you compare your forcing of communism on the rest of the world to the Nazi party's rise to dominance. The ONLY way you will implement such a thing is through violence, because communism is essentially government-muscled theft. Clearly there are communist parties in the US and elsewhere, but are they winning elections? Even large portions of votes? No.

There goes your democratic communism. You'll have to convince a lot more people to give up everything they own for the good of the state before that has a chance. Good luck with that.

Anarcho Communist

true communism is through choice not dictatorship, communism has never been attempted. All supposide communist nations are only variations of.

And even these slight variations do work.

Look at the speed of progress in russia after the revolution and cuba according the CIA has a world bench amrck education and health system.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Oh and btw China is doing pretty well for itself

Communist...but anarchic rather than the bogus state capitalist variety of the former USSR

Santa don't be foolish.

Capitalism has your information masked and under control you'll never hear of the success of communism

Venezuela ratifies Chavez(friend of castro) victory
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3605772.stm

Uruguay elects left-wing leader
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3968755.stm

Look at the failings of capitalism and its inequalities, america is a nation of Gated communities and ghettos

corporativism... this is the better solution!
Not communism!
Not capitalism!

Right to the propriety not only right of propriety.

I dont think i am sergesting forcing communism apon any one infact quite the oposite. The reason that communists are not winning elections is thet I dont think any actualy stand for them. I will never force any one to accept communisum. I likend it to the rise of Nazisum as that was the frist 'non-democratic' political system that I could think of that managed to be democraticaly voted for.

By winning I ment it seams to have got most sreport on this topic thats all.

I do not wont to force communism on anybody I am sergesting an ellected communist state not a forced one this means that 'the people' would have asced for it and not have had it forced apon them. And if i loose the vote then i will say "fine 'the people' do not want communisum i will not give it to them" I fail to see what propblem you have with this.

Does anyone hear know of a communisst reagion on this game i would love to join it (if it exists if not I would like to Know how to set one up and if anyone would join?)

whats a ghettos?

join us at Burn the priest

half of us are anarcho communists but most haven't joined yet

Yeah. Like the USSR did, it worked like magic. Well no, it worked "to some extent," which is a way of saying it did not cause time and existence itself to break down, merely the Russian economy and hegemony.




Agree! And that's one way in which capitalism produces stable societies, with our hideous "classes" that Marx wished would just disappear.

I'm pretty much ignoring you and the previous post's examples about the Perfect Communist Society. Comparing an imperfect capitalist society with a perfect any society is not quite fair, is it? Of COURSE the perfect society will be, well, perfect.

But you damned communists can't just keep thumping your utopian marxist bible visions as a way to convince people how good communism is. I could name hypothetical governments in which we are all food for brain-eating overlords with perfect societies, but that wouldn't make you suddenly start voting for brain-eating overlords like Nader, would it?

I was under the impression that the major economies at that time in the world, were mostly Pro capitalist and Anti Communist. You are saying that the failure of A communist system with Quotas in a free market world proves Communisim is inferior. I don't see how you can make a clear comparison there, when we have yet to see how a Capitalist nation with would survive under the same situation (Dealing with a world controlled by Communist nations).

Secondly, I think Zotrannsia's point about the Garbage collector is that as they both have an important role, and without either role the world would fall apart. Therefore, because both roles when they are fufilled actually contribute equally to the upkeep of a reasonably sucessful society, then they should receive the same amount of money.

And as for your Argument against Zotrannsia's point - that we automatically assume the extremes, I'm going to take it to Unninalia.

So, you automatically assume that, in the Joe and Bob Situation, the Government is never going to give Joe a single days rest because he is the superior worker. Considering that people need rest to function effectively, if a government had any brains at all, it would give it's workers spare time to ensure this. If Capitalist governemnts can do this, then surely Communist ones can for similar reasons - after all, got to ensure they can make their contribution to the people! Please. If the government is greedy enough not to care about it's workers, it is already on the back foot , as people tend to rise up when they have no rights, Communist, Socialist, Capitalist or otherwise.

Secondly, as for this "Owes nothing to the government that is enslaving him". I'm fairly sure a central tennent of Communist Principle is the demolition of all private property. Therefore is it not the "state" that provides Healthcare, Defence, Food, Water etc etc etc ... Are You are suggesting that the government, the "state" (if you could call it that) or the people in a communist nation (That's probably the best term) should receive nothing for ensuring the availiblity of these services? In Capitalist nations, services have a price, and if the Communist people provide to a person, they should get the rewards from that person.

The harder work of the two, to some people could very well be moving around as a garbage worker, picking through waste and possibly disease ridden garbage, in rain, sun or shine, every day. You have to consider points of veiw outside our own. Harder work can be very subjective (Although I do agree with your point).

Although I don't like Communisim's lack of tolerance for religion. I don't believe it myself, but ... people have their rights to it.

Do I believe sucessful Communisim, or even Capitalism is feasible in the current world situation without big trouble? No, I don't. I see the world as leaning towards Capitalisim at the current moment, but also learn towards centrisim as there are socialist elements in the day to day running of many of the world's more powerful nations. However, I do see that technology, restraint and more understanding may allow the creation of a functioning, but not perfect, Commnuist State. I also believe this can happen to Capitalisim as well. Genetic engineering could help tone down human behaviours that are unproductive, partially eliminate greed, and better knowledge in general could improve the standards of the population, helping each and every worker perform better and avoiding one person falling foul to failures of many. People could have the full tennents of each and every system laid out without bible thumping, with a good dose of realisim which would help the quest for better political systems even better. I would honestly say I don't believe we can ever have a perfect nation in any government form, but Capitalist, or Communist, I do belive that these systems will undergo a continual refinement process, and that both systems can work well, although never to utopian ideals.

However, I do support Communisim at the moment, not because I believe it is the better system (I believe Capitalisim and Commmunisim are roughly even on that) but because I would like to see Humankind try and improve both systems, instead of writing them off as idealistic, or whatnot.

You are right in saying that we as humans need to no longer be greedy for communism to work. Communisum's main failling is the humans in it as humans are naturaly gready but can we realy remove a human bahavioral trate like gread with genetics? If you are saying this is how to do it you are also saying that bahavior is controlle by genetics and not by the environment in which we live. (If i have missunderstud please correct me)

With regards to my previous questin 'whats a ghettos?' please dont think me an ignerent fool I did not Know that is how you spelt ghettos I thought it would be spelt geto or something.

Recently I have been thinking about the feasiblility of communism in our current world and I have noticed something, that is; we apear to have had verious stages or erras where different classes have had the most amount of 'controll' over this and most western nations and these are; from the rise of antient imperialisum untill the the start of the the 18th century it has been the upper class with the most 'controll', then with the industrial revelution we saw the rise of the middle classes and that is what we have in the present day and i now egaly awite the rise of the lower classes who will I hope chose communisum as there prefered goverment type.

the middle class are a creation of the upper class in order to divide the working class in all anyone who is not the boss is a worker and so the working class is 99% of the world.

But with the middle class the upper class has dividied and conquered.


www.iww.org

You are right in saying that we as humans need to no longer be greedy for communism to work. Communisum's main failling is the humans in it as humans are naturaly gready but can we realy remove a human bahavioral trate like gread with genetics? If you are saying this is how to do it you are also saying that bahavior is controlle by genetics and not by the environment in which we live. (If i have missunderstud please correct me)

With regards to my previous questin 'whats a ghettos?' please dont think me an ignerent fool I did not Know that is how you spelt ghettos I thought it would be spelt geto or something.

Recently I have been thinking about the feasiblility of communism in our current world and I have noticed something, that is; we apear to have had verious stages or erras where different classes have had the most amount of 'controll' over this and most western nations and these are; from the rise of antient imperialisum untill the the start of the the 18th century it has been the upper class with the most 'controll', then with the industrial revelution we saw the rise of the middle classes and that is what we have in the present day and i now egaly awite the rise of the lower classes who will I hope chose communisum as there prefered goverment type.

I do believe Genetics can help reduce the trait, among dozens of other things. Everything person does is influenced by genetics and their environment. They can be used, over a long period of time, to help smooth the way for a reasonably sucessful Communist nation.

That's why I'm saying we could make Communisim work - all you have to do is implement it slowly . We can all act greedy, because we are all falliable and all Human. Therefore Communisim can never approach utopian ideals, nor Capitalisim for that matter , but it is, in my opinion, important to make the systems the best we can, so people can choose between two functioning systems.

But altering genetics alone is (in my opinion) not inough the enviroment in which we are rased needs to be changed aswell to make communisum work as at the momenmt it is a very anti-communisum/ pro-capitalisum one this also needs to be chaned if we are to have any hope of acheveing any sort of communisum.

To the 'The Peoples Pride' I think that the middle class was created by themself they dont seam to benafite the upper or the lower. You are also makeing out that the upper classes have chosen to be the enamies of the lower classes I do not think that this is the chase as people born into the uper classes have as much controll over what sosial possision they are born into as a dog has as becoming a dog also it is not the falt of the uper classes that they are indoctrinated into feeling themself better than the lower classes. The middle classes arose by themself during the rise of small buissneses in the middle ages but they have only recently gained any power.

Why wold the upper clkasses set up a class that only took power away from them.

The best solution to gthe sosial problem of the class system is to abolish classes.

To Xenonier which would you preffer communisum or capitalisum (no rael reason for question just wonted to know.)

If you ask me, why capitalist hate communism so much is because of to things:

1) greed
2) ignorance

In a world where we are brought up alreading beleiving that communism is bad, capitalism good, a lot of the population has no chance to explore the options from both sides. Greed is an animal instinct, yes, but since we are the dominant species on Earth don't you think that we should rise out of the pit we call home and into a new piece of land we call Heaven? Doesn't it make you feel good when you help somebody? In a communist/ socialist society, you give up money for others: work for the common good of your fellow men that for your own purposes. That's just my stance.

Rummland

P.S. I support the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA in real life.
RCP's Website (http://www.rwor.com). Just look around and read some of Chairman Bob Avakian's liturature. Very eye opening.

I was under the impression that the major economies at that time in the world, were mostly Pro capitalist and Anti Communist. You are saying that the failure of A communist system with Quotas in a free market world proves Communisim is inferior. I don't see how you can make a clear comparison there, when we have yet to see how a Capitalist nation with would survive under the same situation (Dealing with a world controlled by Communist nations).
To see that example would be useless, since there are too many variables governing whether the nation would survive or not. Unless you had about ten thousand sample populations on large scale--then you could make a fairly accurate general statement in order to come to a specific conclusion.

You accuse me of using inductive reasoning. But I was not saying that A communist system may or may not work...I'm saying that all communist systems of the type you specified will not. It is therefore deductive reasoning.

Secondly, I think Zotrannsia's point about the Garbage collector is that as they both have an important role, and without either role the world would fall apart. Therefore, because both roles when they are fufilled actually contribute equally to the upkeep of a reasonably sucessful society, then they should receive the same amount of money.
That was laughable. Ok, lets say that there are two things important for the continued operation of a machine: maintenence, such as repairs and replacements of worn parts, and keeping it dust-free. Both are absolutely vital. Do we pay the guys who dust the machine the same amount as we pay the guys who spend hours with wrench, screwdriver, and welding torch? I guess you would. And you would see quickly that the guys who are working harder will wonder why they aren't making more. And why they should bother doing the heavy work at all when they can do much less work So they'll toss down their welding torches and pick up feather dusters, and the torches will be picked up by people who are potentially less competent than they are. They will flub up the job and the machine will malfunction.


And as for your Argument against Zotrannsia's point - that we automatically assume the extremes, I'm going to take it to Unninalia.
Oh boy, I'm nervous now.


So, you automatically assume that, in the Joe and Bob Situation, the Government is never going to give Joe a single days rest because he is the superior worker. Considering that people need rest to function effectively, if a government had any brains at all, it would give it's workers spare time to ensure this.
Communists are big fans of beating a dead horse, actually. Its because they depend on the premise that so long as they really really want something, it will happen for them, because its wrong and bad if it doesnt.

If Capitalist governemnts can do this, then surely Communist ones can for similar reasons - after all, got to ensure they can make their contribution to the people!
Contribution to the people? What could possibly inspire them to "contribute to the people?" Do you think people in power care about people who are not in power? I hope you like your little world.

Please. If the government is greedy enough not to care about it's workers, it is already on the back foot , as people tend to rise up when they have no rights, Communist, Socialist, Capitalist or otherwise.
Read some Machiavelli, The Prince in particular. Oh and read some John Locke.

You know what any human cares about above all? Its not his neighbor. Its himself. If he's starving to death in the wilderness and comes across a poor, helpless, sick woman is eating a fat steak, he will kill her if necessary to take it, and you can scrap your romantic ideas about the hero sacrificing himself for the sake of the damsel in distress. Man always looks out for his private interests. Greed is his prime motivator. Consequently, it is better for a government to drive their population with fear than with love, because while love depends on man's sense of obligation, which is weak, fear is in the control and power of the ruler. What will motivate you more? "Give me that steak pretty please? I'll give you a couple of days off!" or "Give me that steak or I'll rip your throat out."

Secondly, as for this "Owes nothing to the government that is enslaving him". I'm fairly sure a central tennent of Communist Principle is the demolition of all private property. Therefore is it not the "state" that provides Healthcare, Defence, Food, Water etc etc etc ... Are You are suggesting that the government, the "state" (if you could call it that) or the people in a communist nation (That's probably the best term) should receive nothing for ensuring the availiblity of these services? In Capitalist nations, services have a price, and if the Communist people provide to a person, they should get the rewards from that person.
How is getting what everybody else gets a reward for your specific effort?

The harder work of the two, to some people could very well be moving around as a garbage worker, picking through waste and possibly disease ridden garbage, in rain, sun or shine, every day. You have to consider points of veiw outside our own. Harder work can be very subjective (Although I do agree with your point).
The garbageman was just an example. It could just as easily be the feather-duster. You're right, garbagemen actually work pretty hard...guess what? But they make money in the process. Contrary to popular belief, garbagemen make a very nice salary.


Although I don't like Communisim's lack of tolerance for religion. I don't believe it myself, but ... people have their rights to it.

Thats an interesting point. I've always held that though atheism is correct, religion is a good thing to have around because it keeps people happy. Also, if everybody were atheist, you would take an important structuredness from lots of people's lives...this structuredness is something that every human needs, so if they dont have it from religion, they may seek to get it from something else that has the power over their lives. Like dictatorships. I fear dictatorships greatly, especially since, because people are becoming generally less religious as time progresses, they become more likely.

Do I believe sucessful Communisim, or even Capitalism is feasible in the current world situation without big trouble? No, I don't. I see the world as leaning towards Capitalisim at the current moment, but also learn towards centrisim as there are socialist elements in the day to day running of many of the world's more powerful nations.
Those socialist elements are what I hate about the world. Seriously. We're killing natural selection, killing progress, killing our last shreds of morality.

However, I do see that technology, restraint and more understanding may allow the creation of a functioning, but not perfect, Commnuist State. I also believe this can happen to Capitalisim as well. Genetic engineering could help tone down human behaviours that are unproductive, partially eliminate greed, and better knowledge in general could improve the standards of the population, helping each and every worker perform better and avoiding one person falling foul to failures of many.
A government that has the power to genetically eliminate greed immediately has the power to destroy a people's will to resist oppression. Those humans will become ants. Read 1984--what you're talking about could lead to an even more extreme version of that, except without any Goldsteins or Winstons.

People could have the full tennents of each and every system laid out without bible thumping, with a good dose of realisim which would help the quest for better political systems even better. I would honestly say I don't believe we can ever have a perfect nation in any government form, but Capitalist, or Communist, I do belive that these systems will undergo a continual refinement process, and that both systems can work well, although never to utopian ideals.
Every single thing you and all of the communist supporters in this thread have depended upon were utopian conditions-utterly infeasible ones.

However, I do support Communisim at the moment, not because I believe it is the better system (I believe Capitalisim and Commmunisim are roughly even on that) but because I would like to see Humankind try and improve both systems, instead of writing them off as idealistic, or whatnot.


I hate the generalization by communists that all capitalists just "write off" communism. I know that I never "wrote it off". I learned about it, compared it to what I know about capitalism, and formed my own opinion on it. I refuse to argue with people who use fallacies so blatant as the one quoted above as sole support for their arguments. Not that I'm saying you are--you do make good points. Its just that too many people say "capitalists are ignorant and know nothing about communism so communism is correct,' which is complete bullshit. The other argument seems to be, "OMFG THINK OF THE POOR." to which I respond, "Think of the human race."

For Zotrannsias points, remember I was only trying to interpret them. I do believe he/she could have fleshed them out better.

You're taking everything I say against you entirely. The points about Communisim being written off weren't aimed at you, they are aimed at the people who don't. It's little arguments like "OMG COMMNUISIM HAS FAILED AND CAPITALISIM HAS NOT SO COMMUNISIM SUCKS LOLOOLO" that I'm angry with, because, as you have said - we essentially need a large study of both systems, in regions that favour each other, to really declare a clear victor and anything else is educated simulations and conclusions, well educated, but essentialy simulations. I'll make it clearer next time.

I won't lie when I say that I believe this world, it's media, and it's opinion is slanted against Communisim. You've come to your opinions, and you believe in natural selection, and I applaud you for trying to understand. But too many people don't, when all they need to do is place some time and effort into such things i'm angry at them, not you, so don't take it that way. I don't believe my post was agressive at all, if it came across as an attack on you, I apologise.

Secondly, I believe our points cross swords in some cases, because of conflicting ideology. I'm of the believe Humankind has come to a point where we can prove we are the superior race - not because we are sentient, or we can build a world-spanning empire, but because we can ensure everybody has an equal oppurtunity and work to support everybody. Morality is subjective, and I see no reason why the "Strong" should survive at the expense of the "weak" when you can make sure there is as few "weak" as possible. That' my morals, yours are different - you seem to advocate natural selection.

Along with Your comment about people becoming ants - I'm saying that the government could indeed work, at whatever the cost. I'm sure through genetics we can have a functioning utopian Capitalist system as well. We can get these systems working, although at what cost is an interesting question. Whether the government takes steps to eliminate greed through genetics, education, selective breeding - over time, and many hundreds if not thousands of years a government could get a large, worldwide or nationwide dogma that supports Communisim. A failure in Capitalist governments, leaving the people of a nation with nothing but Communisim to embrace could work. There are probably uncounted ways such a political reform could happen. If people have no choice, they will turn to Communisim as a survival discion alone. .

Also, I feel like asking this question (No offense, I've just never had somebody who fully supports the strong survive government answer this is all) now, if the government is brainwashing the people, wouldn't that be the survival/prosperity of the fittest - the government taking it's power and ensuring it's rule by any and all means, becoming strong at the suffering of the weak. Wouldn't that be an application of the strongest survive policy, or do you beleive even the weak have a right to free will.?

As for my comment on "Contribution to the people", I meant the government ensuring the worker could work is the piority. I've played on your assumption governments don't care about the people, and made a statement. For a Government to have a sucessful government, of any form, they need to have the majority support of those who have power. Whether that be military, people or whatnot. If the government doesn't look after it's citizens - then it's citizens suffer, and eventually, productivity suffers. Rebellion is indeed a risk if you don't have the support of enough powerful elements, and if you mistreat all, then you run that risk. Fear cannot compensate for broken limbs because the people are not being looked after. You can rule through fear as much as you like, but the iron fist does have negative consequences.

I was under the assumption this was the reason a Capitalist company or government worked - they give people rest so the worker works better for the time they do work. A communist government, would we be based around ensuring social equality as best as it can, would make sure everybody is contribtuing to their best ability, no? That is what meant by contribution to the people.

As for your pessisim over people in power and whether they care or not - it's true, some people don't care about the groups below them, but other leaders do care. To automatically assume each and every Human being will not acre about people below them is not only stupid, but ignorant. It's true we are bred to survive - but there are billions of humans - there are people who genuinely care out there, humanitarian aid workers who die for their cause being a few.

You are making primarily negative, pessimistic assumptions about Human Nature, and particuarly conquering the instinct of Greed. I can accept that, because it is realistic and that is an important quality. I may have set utopian conditions, but you forget something I said through my entire post(s) that means they are valid points in my opinion. I've accepted they won't work to utopian ideals. They may be utopian condition, but I acept they won't work like that. The conditions will be lower, resulting in an imperfect government system. I've accepted the Government is going to put itself first, but do I believe that will always be at the expense of the population? No. In some cases yes, in others no. I've accepted we cannot eliminate all greed, but that we could, someday make the system work acceptably. I've set utopian ideals and conditions because I believe to make such a system work, we need to aim as high as we can, but know that we can never get there and accept that. Because, I believe, if we do strive to get as close to perfection as we can, we make the best system we can, Capitalist or Communist.

I won't deny you have some generalisations I dislike of your own, but It's been a interesting discussion. I find you are one of the few people you see on the internet who can actually discuss these topics without dissolving into the classic argument.

EDIT. Bellutan. Because of my morals, I learn towards Centrisim (At the moment) with a higher than average level of Social elements, but If a working Communist government system came up, I'd probably go for it unless the competing Capitalist one was better.

Whichever works better I'd live in, but I'd never stop trying to improve the others. If they were equal, I'd choose Communisim.

For Zotrannsias points, remember I was only trying to interpret them. I do believe he/she could have fleshed them out better.

You're taking everything I say against you entirely. The points about Communisim being written off weren't aimed at you, they are aimed at the people who don't. It's little arguments like "OMG COMMNUISIM HAS FAILED AND CAPITALISIM HAS NOT SO COMMUNISIM SUCKS LOLOOLO" that I'm angry with, because, as you have said - we essentially need a large study of both systems, in regions that favour each other, to really declare a clear victor and anything else is educated simulations and conclusions, well educated, but essentialy simulations. I'll make it clearer next time.

I won't lie when I say that I believe this world, it's media, and it's opinion is slanted against Communisim. You've come to your opinions, and you believe in natural selection, and I applaud you for trying to understand. But too many people don't, when all they need to do is place some time and effort into such things i'm angry at them, not you, so don't take it that way. I don't believe my post was agressive at all, if it came across as an attack on you, I apologise.
I realize that. If I seemed biting, it's because I was having one of those days that feels like everybody is drilling holes into you for the sheer pleasure of seeing your flesh twist and squirm.


Secondly, I believe our points cross swords in some cases, because of conflicting ideology. I'm of the believe Humankind has come to a point where we can prove we are the superior race - not because we are sentient, or we can build a world-spanning empire, but because we can ensure everybody has an equal oppurtunity and work to support everybody. Morality is subjective, and I see no reason why the "Strong" should survive at the expense of the "weak" when you can make sure there is as few "weak" as possible. That' my morals, yours are different - you seem to advocate natural selection.
I dont really support Social Darwinism as much as I am against its antithesis, which seems to be your entire political ideology. The premise behind your ideology--which is, by the way, the premise upon which your entire argument stands--is that humans are more or less equally capable. But in a world where there are no infinite resources, this is clearly not true. Natural selection does kick in, because there simply isn't always enough for everybody's spoiled comfort. Therefore the strong must feed off of the weak to make themselves slightly happier. I wouldn't live on the brink of starvation for the sake of some family in a third world country, because I don't know them. I would share my food with them if I did, because in meeting them I would establish a personal connection with them which would provide that making them happy would increase my happiness as well. But then again, I'd only share, and not give for the sake of charity. There is no greater stupidity than to let yourself die for the sake of another.

Along with Your comment about people becoming ants - I'm saying that the government could indeed work, at whatever the cost. I'm sure through genetics we can have a functioning utopian Capitalist system as well. We can get these systems working, although at what cost is an interesting question. Whether the government takes steps to eliminate greed through genetics, education, selective breeding - over time, and many hundreds if not thousands of years a government could get a large, worldwide or nationwide dogma that supports Communisim.
What I'm saying is that the government officials who supported the genetic-altering pill would give everybody but themselves said pill, and within weeks they'd have billions of their own personal slaves. Then they'd war amongst eachother, kill eachother off, the rest of humanity would fail to progress because the pill would weed out any form of natural selection, and we'd be killed when the wolf population rose because we could never be so heartless as not to let the wolves have a chance, even at the expense of our babies.

A failure in Capitalist governments, leaving the people of a nation with nothing but Communisim to embrace could work. There are probably uncounted ways such a political reform could happen. If people have no choice, they will turn to Communisim as a survival discion alone.
That last sentence is the most hilarious I've seen in this thread. If you provide people with only one choice, they will of course choose it!! If I offer you a choice of red mints or...red mints, you'll probably choose red mints. Happy holidays!

But ponder the following: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You can strip him of political freedoms, but you can't make him drink. You can put him on a torture rack, but you can't make him drink.


Also, I feel like asking this question (No offense, I've just never had somebody who fully supports the strong survive government answer this is all) now, if the government is brainwashing the people, wouldn't that be the survival/prosperity of the fittest - the government taking it's power and ensuring it's rule by any and all means, becoming strong at the suffering of the weak. Wouldn't that be an application of the strongest survive policy, or do you beleive even the weak have a right to free will.?
I'm not as extreme as you seem to think. Of course I don't want that to happen, because as I've said, I fear dictatorships.

As for my comment on "Contribution to the people", I meant the government ensuring the worker could work is the piority. I've played on your assumption governments don't care about the people, and made a statement. For a Government to have a sucessful government, of any form, they need to have the majority support of those who have power. Whether that be military, people or whatnot. If the government doesn't look after it's citizens - then it's citizens suffer, and eventually, productivity suffers. Rebellion is indeed a risk if you don't have the support of enough powerful elements, and if you mistreat all, then you run that risk. Fear cannot compensate for broken limbs because the people are not being looked after. You can rule through fear as much as you like, but the iron fist does have negative consequences.
The purpose of a Government is not to make people happy. We have movies for that. The purpose of a Government is not to make people productive. We have greed for that. The purpose of a Government is to protect the natural rights of its citizens- their life, liberty, property. Anything beyond that is Government officials abusing their power to benefit themselves, or distorting to impose their social, philosophical, or political beliefs on everybody else. *cough george bush cough* And giving them free money just for being human and a nice guy is not protecting them.

I was under the assumption this was the reason a Capitalist company or government worked - they give people rest so the worker works better for the time they do work. A communist government, would we be based around ensuring social equality as best as it can, would make sure everybody is contribtuing to their best ability, no? That is what meant by contribution to the people.
Your definition of contributing to the people is making them contribute...?

Anyway, see above. We created governments when we banded together against packs of wolves. If the purpose of government were to give people free money, they would not have been created, because there is no infinite source of wealth, and to give free money to one person therefore is to take away from the rest.

As for your pessisim over people in power and whether they care or not - it's true, some people don't care about the groups below them, but other leaders do care. To automatically assume each and every Human being will not acre about people below them is not only stupid, but ignorant.
So, because some leaders might care, we should all support every leader because they all must? Nice fallacy there. But anyway, to create a government based on the benevolence of a particular leader is foolish, because that leader won't be there forever. His replacement might make his stewardship seem very delicious indeed to the people who elect him into power, and then turn around and enslave everybody. Take Hitler for example.

And my pessimism about human nature, though i don't like it either, is very true. This is why I encourage you to read Machiavelli's The Prince.

It's true we are bred to survive - but there are billions of humans - there are people who genuinely care out there, humanitarian aid workers who die for their cause being a few.
They do so because it makes them happy. Sacrificing themselves gives them satisfaction, simply because they do not value money. So its not really a sacrifice at all. If sacrificing themselves did not make them happy, they would stop. So their humanitarianism really based on their own happiness, not everybody else's.

You are making primarily negative, pessimistic assumptions about Human Nature, and particuarly conquering the instinct of Greed. I can accept that, because it is realistic and that is an important quality. I may have set utopian conditions, but you forget something I said through my entire post(s) that means they are valid points in my opinion. I've accepted they won't work to utopian ideals. They may be utopian condition, but I acept they won't work like that. The conditions will be lower, resulting in an imperfect government system. I've accepted the Government is going to put itself first, but do I believe that will always be at the expense of the population? No. In some cases yes, in others no. I've accepted we cannot eliminate all greed, but that we could, someday make the system work acceptably. I've set utopian ideals and conditions because I believe to make such a system work, we need to aim as high as we can, but know that we can never get there and accept that. Because, I believe, if we do strive to get as close to perfection as we can, we make the best system we can, Capitalist or Communist.
I'm sorry, I hate to rip those rose-colored glasses from your face, but its true. The human race acts on the principle of greed and private interests. Anything more is only a supplicant to greed or private interest. That's life.

I won't deny you have some generalisations I dislike of your own, but It's been a interesting discussion. I find you are one of the few people you see on the internet who can actually discuss these topics without dissolving into the classic argument.
Right back at you. I recommend you read some books on this topic however, as you seem to lack some clarity as to exactly why the human greed principle is necessary. Start with John Locke, I think his second treatise is the most important, as it defines what the natural rights of man are, and the purpose of the establishment of government. The entire American system was founded on these principles. We just happened to forget them. Also, read Machiavelli's The Prince-he does a very good job proving that Greed is a survival necessity, and a government can only remain in power by playing on greed. 1984 presents the horrors of a totalitarian society, and why extreme communism and extreme capitalism both amount to the same thing-power of the few, suffering of the many. Anthem, by Ayn Rand, and We, by some russian dude whose name starts with a Z methinks, provide similar insight. The communist manifesto of course is pertinent. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand shows why Socialism is corrupted by Greed while Capitalism is rather fueled by it. Off the top of my head, those are the best things you can read that are pertinent.

Whichever works better I'd live in, but I'd never stop trying to improve the others. If they were equal, I'd choose Communisim.
This is similar to the funny quote a little ways above. Of course the better system would work. Anyone would choose a system that works better. Which one, is the question we're debating.

National Socialist

Ah, I finally found the quote tag!


I dont really support Social Darwinism as much as I am against its antithesis, which seems to be your entire political ideology. The premise behind your ideology--which is, by the way, the premise upon which your entire argument stands--is that humans are more or less equally capable. But in a world where there are no infinite resources, this is clearly not true. Natural selection does kick in, because there simply isn't always enough for everybody's spoiled comfort. Therefore the strong must feed off of the weak to make themselves slightly happier. I wouldn't live on the brink of starvation for the sake of some family in a third world country, because I don't know them. I would share my food with them if I did, because in meeting them I would establish a personal connection with them which would provide that making them happy would increase my happiness as well. But then again, I'd only share, and not give for the sake of charity. There is no greater stupidity than to let yourself die for the sake of another.

My premise is more making Humans as equally capable as we can, without compromising individuality. And targeting the greed that has a spirallaed way out of control this century.

It's true there is a limited amount of resources on Earth in this timeline. To argue Natural selection is justified in such a context is overshadowed by many things. Who knows what technology with bring. We will be working with atoms in 200 years? If so, what then? Once we get down to atoms, the entire Galaxies count of Energy and matter remains constant We have a resource that lasts until the universe ends, .

Following along with the example of an African family. I would go near the brink of starvation, without actually risking my life, for their sake. On your reason of happiness, I find that never meeting the person - being willing to give ot someone you may never know, is more fufilling than giving to those who make you happy, and now that family is removed from the risk of Starvation, and having come close to death, is more likely to help others..

What I'm saying is that the government officials who supported the genetic-altering pill would give everybody but themselves said pill, and within weeks they'd have billions of their own personal slaves. Then they'd war amongst eachother, kill eachother off, the rest of humanity would fail to progress because the pill would weed out any form of natural selection, and we'd be killed when the wolf population rose because we could never be so heartless as not to let the wolves have a chance, even at the expense of our babies.

I find this assumption dubious. Firstly, I do believe we could, once we get the atomic level, only take out specific traits as a motivator without endangering others. But that's another story. Firstly, if the government officals go to war, each and every one would be at great risk of losing everything? How can I be sure of this? Quite simple. If their followers are so concerned with equality, their followers, whom are now supposed enslaved to the idea of equality, would never let one government person get the upper hand. Greed is true, but another factor in Humankid is Paranoia - why try such a foolhardy act when even your slaves cannot allow you such an advantage because you enslaved them to the idea of equality?

So, because some leaders might care, we should all support every leader because they all must? Nice fallacy there. But anyway, to create a government based on the benevolence of a particular leader is foolish, because that leader won't be there forever. His replacement might make his stewardship seem very delicious indeed to the people who elect him into power, and then turn around and enslave everybody. Take Hitler for example.

And my pessimism about human nature, though i don't like it either, is very true. This is why I encourage you to read Machiavelli's The Prince.

I never said we should trust all leaders. I said you can't write them all off.

I'm sorry, I hate to rip those rose-colored glasses from your face, but its true. The human race acts on the principle of greed and private interests. Anything more is only a supplicant to greed or private interest. That's life.


Right back at you. I recommend you read some books on this topic however, as you seem to lack some clarity as to exactly why the human greed principle is necessary. Start with John Locke, I think his second treatise is the most important, as it defines what the natural rights of man are, and the purpose of the establishment of government. The entire American system was founded on these principles. We just happened to forget them. Also, read Machiavelli's The Prince-he does a very good job proving that Greed is a survival necessity, and a government can only remain in power by playing on greed. 1984 presents the horrors of a totalitarian society, and why extreme communism and extreme capitalism both amount to the same thing-power of the few, suffering of the many. Anthem, by Ayn Rand, and We, by some russian dude whose name starts with a Z methinks, provide similar insight. The communist manifesto of course is pertinent. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand shows why Socialism is corrupted by Greed while Capitalism is rather fueled by it. Off the top of my head, those are the best things you can read that are pertinent.

I've already read Machiavelli's the Prince. It is indeed one the most accurate descriptions of Humans as a poltical animal I have read for a long time. It does hammer home the point in many ways, although many are certain to disagree with his veiws on cruelty over mercy and whatnot. John Locke, I've yet to read. Atlas Shrugged is a 50/50 veiw for me. In My opinion, it doesn't have half the weight Machiavelli does . It's got some points, but I do have some minor niggiles with it, such as her seeming refusal to cover Things of a nature her objectivist philosophy cannot clearly decide on.I didn't enjoy her constant bashing of any act of charity either.There are some good criticisims of Ayn Rynd and her philosophies. I remember some where on About.com, but most have passed into my memory. Google could help.

However, I won't stop advocating a way to reduce Greed's effects. Greed goes to far when it comes at the expense of others and the greedy no longer need what they take from others, at others expense. This century has exposed what greed really can lead people to do. Survival instinct or otherwise, it's doing far too much damage. Basically, Greed seems to be giving its adherents the false moral justification to do whatever benefits themselves in all instances, to the exclusion of concerns about what might benefit others and even themselves, in the long run. It's that which concerns me about Capitalisim, and why I do favour Communisim. I want to see the promise of both systems fully explored however.

Now, I must admit it is probably a good time to end this discussion in this topic. Not to say I haven't enjoyed it, but that we will drag this topic way off topic if we go any further. Why is this? I believe this will occur because we are now going into the realm of which philosophy is right or wrong to justify our positions, rather than arguing which system is better. Because I forsee this is going to turn into a argument about Greed than anything else.'

We could discuss it in telegram or something.

Communist.

Kommunistisch! eine andere gefallene worden Nation beten zu, was ich als Pest nur beschreiben kann

translation:Communist! another nation fallen pray to what i can only describe as a plague

My premise is more making Humans as equally capable as we can, without compromising individuality. And targeting the greed that has a spirallaed way out of control this century.
I dont think you understand what a premise, no offense. A premise is a fact that supports an argument.

As far as making humans as equally capable as we can without compromising individuality, that is a total paradox. If you create equality, you sacrifice individuality. That is that.

It's true there is a limited amount of resources on Earth in this timeline. To argue Natural selection is justified in such a context is overshadowed by many things. Who knows what technology with bring. We will be working with atoms in 200 years? If so, what then? Once we get down to atoms, the entire Galaxies count of Energy and matter remains constant We have a resource that lasts until the universe ends, .
You're picturing in your head an ideal universe where we had unlimited resources. But in such a circumstance, governments become unnecessary, because people won't have to harm eachother to protect their private interests, so why argue the point?

Following along with the example of an African family. I would go near the brink of starvation, without actually risking my life, for their sake. On your reason of happiness, I find that never meeting the person - being willing to give ot someone you may never know, is more fufilling than giving to those who make you happy, and now that family is removed from the risk of Starvation, and having come close to death, is more likely to help others..
Again. Contributing to a cause is something people do because then they wear The Red Ribbon of Humanitarianism. It makes them feel all warm and gooey and special to be able to say "I helped this dude" or "I helped a starving African family." But they do this for others for their own sake, whether consciously or unconsciously, because it fulfills a moral value of theirs.


I find this assumption dubious. Firstly, I do believe we could, once we get the atomic level, only take out specific traits as a motivator without endangering others. But that's another story. Firstly, if the government officals go to war, each and every one would be at great risk of losing everything? How can I be sure of this? Quite simple. If their followers are so concerned with equality, their followers, whom are now supposed enslaved to the idea of equality, would never let one government person get the upper hand. Greed is true, but another factor in Humankid is Paranoia - why try such a foolhardy act when even your slaves cannot allow you such an advantage because you enslaved them to the idea of equality?
Read 1984. If the government had control of all the pills, they would have control of all the humans, and the slaves would have no choice but to follow because they would never be given the opportunity to understand that they have another choice.


I never said we should trust all leaders. I said you can't write them all off.

Who to trust, and who to write off? 1930's Germany did a piss-poor job deciding, and 6 million Jews were killed because of it.


I've already read Machiavelli's the Prince. It is indeed one the most accurate descriptions of Humans as a poltical animal I have read for a long time. It does hammer home the point in many ways, although many are certain to disagree with his veiws on cruelty over mercy and whatnot. John Locke, I've yet to read. Atlas Shrugged is a 50/50 veiw for me. In My opinion, it doesn't have half the weight Machiavelli does . It's got some points, but I do have some minor niggiles with it, such as her seeming refusal to cover Things of a nature her objectivist philosophy cannot clearly decide on.I didn't enjoy her constant bashing of any act of charity either.There are some good criticisims of Ayn Rynd and her philosophies. I remember some where on About.com, but most have passed into my memory. Google could help.
I do not honestly believe you have read Machiavelli or Ayn Rand, because if you had, you would have at least the slightest idea what I've been talking about.


However, I won't stop advocating a way to reduce Greed's effects. Greed goes to far when it comes at the expense of others and the greedy no longer need what they take from others, at others expense. This century has exposed what greed really can lead people to do. Survival instinct or otherwise, it's doing far too much damage. Basically, Greed seems to be giving its adherents the false moral justification to do whatever benefits themselves in all instances, to the exclusion of concerns about what might benefit others and even themselves, in the long run. It's that which concerns me about Capitalisim, and why I do favour Communisim. I want to see the promise of both systems fully explored however.
Greed keeps me from letting people eat my food. If you get rid of greed, many people will die.

Now, I must admit it is probably a good time to end this discussion in this topic. Not to say I haven't enjoyed it, but that we will drag this topic way off topic if we go any further. Why is this? I believe this will occur because we are now going into the realm of which philosophy is right or wrong to justify our positions, rather than arguing which system is better. Because I forsee this is going to turn into a argument about Greed than anything else.'

We could discuss it in telegram or something.
Why not discuss it here? This topic went way off topic in the first place. If you want to talk about it aside in a telegram, then fine, but I'd rather continue to talk about it here.

Talking about Greed is on topic--if you talk about political systems, you talk about greed, you talk about private interest. To forget either of the last two in discussing the first, you wind up with a political system at the heart of which lies slavery. Self sacrifice is only a part of human nature as far as it is a moral value--beyond that, there is only private interest, which is far stronger than obligation.

And if you think you would choose to live on the brink of starvation for the sake of someone you don't know, lets see how many days you last before you see the hypocrisy.

I am a more of a Social Communist state, which fits because in reality I am a Communist. :)

I was thinking of doing a communist stock market for NS. It'd be much easier to do than the free market one I'm currently working on...


The share values would be the same for every stock, every day... no profits would be made, no losses incurred....

...since after all to profit more than someone else would be GIVING IN TO THE SIN OF GREED AND CAUSING INEQUALITY AND STARVATION AND OPPRESSION AT THE HANDS OF GREEDY CAPITALIST OVERLORDS, right? :p

Plus, the government knows how to run everything better itself. Especially, a government in a large nation with hundreds of millions of people spread out over most of a continent or so. There's no inefficiency involved there! Centralized government worked really well for the USSR (stories of it's collapse are Capitalist Propaganda) and can easily work in any human society! As long as there are a few people who want it to, it can work. As long as those few people have the guns...

...Which is what gun control is all about, too.

Private is bad! Private ownership, and privacy, lead the Society away from the path of the righteous.

Public is good! When the government owns most or all of everything and controls everybody's 'allocation of resources,' purity is incouraged, nay, FORCED upon the people! And purity forced on people for their own good can never be bad!

As well, we should just abolish classes. No one can be classified! If Joe weighs more than Pete, Joe is actually exactly the same since otherwise we would be showing the gross inequalities of capitalism if we were to classify Joe as being fatter or Pete as a skinny guy.

Hey, we should abolish gender distinction while we're at it; it only incourages sexism! Joe and Mary are not he and her, they are Joe and Mary.

"What a great guy," Mary might say of Joe.

WRONG, Mary. It's "What a great person." Repeat it ten times. Good. Go buy pizza for lunch, now, because the government has decided that's what is nutritionally, economically, aesthetically and socially the most optimal food for your lunch on this day.

Luckily, the Central Command was able to issue today's lunch ticket and prescribed meal, or else you mighta had to starve a little bit again, Mary. Not that you mind that, because you willingly accept the challenges and pleasantries of our lovely Communist Utopia.

Oh, you want a case of beer tonight? I wouldn't mind some myself. Unfortunately the government does not think that everyone of your class - excuse me, I mean every similarly-themed comrade- needs to drink beer tonight, and we can't have INEQUALITY - some people get beer and some people don't. They could PROFIT off that, thus giving in to greed. No, you're much better sober, tonight. Sorry.


... no, on second thought, the free market simulation is more interesting.

Becasue there is no such thing as taking a good idea too far, after all.

Come on, please be serious and don't take an idea far beyond it's bounds. If you can't consider having an idea taken a little way, as opposed to all the way, then what's the point of debating the issue?

the esatern clommunist bloc wishes to say: we are communist, you will be assimilated.

Communism all the way

Democratic Communist

Santa Barbara: I'd kiss you if you were right next to me. Seriously, Kudos!

I'd just like to point out to the two or three people so far who have mentioned, "Oh look how good China is doing," that China is beginning to revert to Capitalism. They decided, you see, that they should allow some of the bigger businesses to boom...and in consequence, their economy is improving.

NO! DO NOT PASS GO! DO NOT COLLECT 200 DOLLARS! DO NOT LISTEN TO ME AND MY CAPITALIST PROPAGANDA!! RUN FOR YOUR HOMES!!!

Becasue there is no such thing as taking a good idea too far, after all.

Come on, please be serious and don't take an idea far beyond it's bounds. If you can't consider having an idea taken a little way, as opposed to all the way, then what's the point of debating the issue?

Ahem, the whole point was that the ideas (and I don't think they're good, obviously) ARE being taken too far from the get-go. "Abolish social classes," someone says, "capitalism is evil" another says, "global revolution of the proletariats" another says.

You don't want to just incourage something here, modify something there, you want to carve a new, utopian vision of the world where everything is as you like it.

I prefer realism. I prefer starting with why these ideals are 'good' in the first place, why the current system is to blame and should be erased over with something else, etc. But all I get is platitudes, pretty much like what I was parodying above.

The core values the anticapitalists to admire - government is a helpful, trustworthy agency (who needs MORE power to accomplish your socialist agendas), greed and materialism and capitalism are all morally evil or direct causes of evil - have no basis in reality. If they did, or if I got more arguments than "communism could work if the government introduced quotas," I'd have more substantial arguments.

Or maybe I wouldn't, because I know NS is overwhelmingly liberal, but the real world more conservative, so I can just content myself with that. :)

I'd rather you wouldn't put it that way, Santa Barbara. You see, I'm a liberal myself, and I dont want to abolish social classes, instate a fallacious, insecure government, etc., etc. Liberals want change. It's radicals that want everything now, and damn reality. And its only socialists who want socialism, thank you very much.

Next to these 10 year old women, I could be considered a conservative, I suppose. You could even argue that I'm a reactionary, since the world exists exactly as they see it whether it does or not. Jeez, I need to think more progressively. What an old fogey I am.

I will ask the question that I have asked many times befor is there a communist region in existance and if not can someone give me advice on how to make a region.

Also has anyone else reasd the 'communist manifesto' I have recently and have noticed that some of the points in it are out dated. For instance alot more people own land so the prolerteriate has in Marx's eyes shrunk so i propose a redefination of the prolerteriate posiably judged by income? Any thoughts??

ahah. Oh, the Communist Manifesto is perhaps slightly outdated? The whole bloody thing wouldn't have worked any less than 200 years ago, and had it been proposed then, the proposers would have been, whether literally or unliterally, crucified.

Piss off.

Next to these 10 year old women, I could be considered a conservative, I suppose. You could even argue that I'm a reactionary, since the world exists exactly as they see it whether it does or not. Jeez, I need to think more progressively. What an old fogey I am.

Sure, of course. Meanwhile, tell the media to stop being so conservative [/sarcasm]

My country keeps switching between "Capitalizt" and "Left-Leaning College State", curiously.
It's a mix of a progressive welfare state and capitalism with a highly competitive, anti-protectionist economy that supports private enterprise. Since the game engine can't properly define it, my UN classification keeps switching.

communist

Communism, all the way man.

Take a look here:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/analysis.html

http://www.newyouth.com/

My favorite sites.

How I feel about capitalism? Capitalism <i>does not work</i>. We have the ability to feed the world and provide resources to everyones needs. But we don't, simply because capitalism doesn't have free access for everyone to get what they need. In a capitalist society we don't produce things because we need them, we produce them to create a profit because that is how companies survive on the market. I say you abolish markets. We don't need them, as they create a gap between the rich and the poor, the rulers against the workers.

I had many questions about communism and I sought after answers. Here is a reply to the laziness concern:

Aside from all the effort
you're forced to go to, to live, what about the other things you do, for
fun, or to help somebody else? Have you ever gone out of your way, made a
special effort, or done a bit of work, not for money but just to help out a
friend? I bet you have. I know I have. What's more, I'd do it again. In
fact, I do things like that for the pleasure of knowing that I've been a
help to someone, knowing that they appreciate me. That's a really fine
feeling and it's worth the work I do to get it. In fact, the harder the
work, the better the feeling. We humans like helping each other, we get a
kick out of it. You've got to be a pretty strange, screwed up individual not
to.

I can tell you're a pretty honest sort of person, because you don't pretend
to be better than other people. When you say that you think people might be
lazy you include yourself, which is a decent thing to do (some people
don't). So I'll ask you to be honest and imagine that you live in a place
where I and all the other people give you food, clothes, shelter, warmth,
and share everything we have with you. Not only that, we include you in our
social life, take you to our parties, invite you out or come round and visit
you, make you in every way one of us. Then suppose we said to you: "look
Shannon. Our sewer drainage system has broken down and if we don't fix it
we're all going to die of cholera, so we're taking turns of four hours each
to go down and clear the blockage. Will you help?" Well, if we were all
going to do it too, would you be able to refuse? How would you feel if
everyone in the community had gone down there and done their four hours, and
you were the only person who hadn't? I mention sewers because it's the most
disgusting job I can think of, and people often ask who would do the dirty
work in socialism. The answer is, I would, if I had to. Now, how would you
answer that question?

Most work in socialism wouldn't be as nasty as that. But in our little
community there'd be all kinds of jobs that needed doing. You'd want to help
out. In fact, the worst thing you could imagine is your help *not* being
wanted, as if you were some kind of outcast. I've done some really dirty,
messy bits of work in the past that, because I did them with other people
who shared the filth, were actually, strangely, not that bad.

Capitalism gives us a bad impression of work. But work is only physical or
mental effort of some kind, and it's not always bad. It's work to learn the
piano, or play a game, or climb a tree or paint a picture. Hobbies are work.
Reading (and writing) this post is a sort of work. Humans like doing things.
You might think - because like me you hate enforced employment - you'd like
nothing better than to do no work. I'd give you a week in front of the TV
eating cheesydoodles, and you'd be bored and restless. Two weeks and you'd
be climbing the walls. Three and a spell down a sewer might start to look
attractive as a change. Four and you'll start to go mad. In fact, you'd die
of boredom and frustration in a very short time if you had nothing to do.
Idleness is not in our nature. We're too creative for that. Doing nothing is
just not interesting enough.


I believe communism works, and if you read the sites I posted earlier, you'll find that Russia, China, and Cuba were not in fact Communists. Their governments were more like officials doling out the stuff instead of the workers as communism envisions.

So, there's my two cents.

How I feel about capitalism? Capitalism <i>does not work</i>. We have the ability to feed the world and provide resources to everyones needs. But we don't, simply because capitalism doesn't have free access for everyone to get what they need. In a capitalist society we don't produce things because we need them, we produce them to create a profit because that is how companies survive on the market. I say you abolish markets. We don't need them, as they create a gap between the rich and the poor, the rulers against the workers.
Your argument here is, "Communism does not work because it doesn't do everything to make everybody happy." I'm sorry. Communism does?

In a capitalist society, people work for their own sake. What you don't seem ot understand is that human beings will only work efficiently for thier own sake.

I had many questions about communism and I sought after answers. Here is a reply to the laziness concern:

Aside from all the effort
you're forced to go to, to live, what about the other things you do, for
fun, or to help somebody else? Have you ever gone out of your way, made a
special effort, or done a bit of work, not for money but just to help out a
friend? I bet you have. I know I have. What's more, I'd do it again. In
fact, I do things like that for the pleasure of knowing that I've been a
help to someone, knowing that they appreciate me. That's a really fine
feeling and it's worth the work I do to get it. In fact, the harder the
work, the better the feeling. We humans like helping each other, we get a
kick out of it. You've got to be a pretty strange, screwed up individual not
to.
I like the little implication in the last sentence. My response to all of this is: You do your friends favors because you are able to without totally screwing up your own life. So what if you had to work with the entire weight of your friends' failures on your shoulders, where you had to work 20 hours a day to feed them? A government that provides food for EVERYBODY requires that EVERYBODY works. If one person slacks off, EVERYBODY ELSE does his work for him. If one person is not quite as capable as the others, EVERYBODY MAKES UP FOR HIS LACK OF PRODUCTIVITY. Since no two human beings are of exactly equal capablities, that means all of the highly productive people are going to be doing the work of the low-productivity people.

I can tell you're a pretty honest sort of person, because you don't pretend
to be better than other people. When you say that you think people might be
lazy you include yourself, which is a decent thing to do (some people
don't). So I'll ask you to be honest and imagine that you live in a place
where I and all the other people give you food, clothes, shelter, warmth,
and share everything we have with you. Not only that, we include you in our
social life, take you to our parties, invite you out or come round and visit
you, make you in every way one of us. Then suppose we said to you: "look
Shannon. Our sewer drainage system has broken down and if we don't fix it
we're all going to die of cholera, so we're taking turns of four hours each
to go down and clear the blockage. Will you help?" Well, if we were all
going to do it too, would you be able to refuse? How would you feel if
everyone in the community had gone down there and done their four hours, and
you were the only person who hadn't? I mention sewers because it's the most
disgusting job I can think of, and people often ask who would do the dirty
work in socialism. The answer is, I would, if I had to. Now, how would you
answer that question?
Hmmm, but if Shannon is living in a shelter, then she's probably a very low-productivity person, wouldn't you say? Or else she would have made something of herself? So when she goes on her shift in the sewers, and does less work than the rest of you (even working at 100%, she's still low-productivity), and then you take her home and give her the same food as you are given, don't you ask the question, "Since I did more work, and am consequently more tired, shouldn't I have more food to compensate for my labor?" If you don't have more food than Shannon, tomorrow you're going to be as low-productivity as she is since you're malnourished. And everybody is going to be low-productivity from that point on. How good is that for the economy? And please don't say, "Oh well the government will just give everybody more food." There is a limited amount of food on the earth, believe it or not, living or dead. With incompetent people reproducing as many children as the rest of us, the demand for food will increase even further, and the supply will be pretty crappy. At that point, we will be killing eachother for food. So much for your utopian, absolutely peaceful system.

I'll be damned if I'm going to wade in more shit than the next guy to feed him. He can go to hell for all I care.

And also bear in mind that you're not going to know everybody you're working for personally, so don't give me the "oh but you wouldn't let your friend starve." argument.

Most work in socialism wouldn't be as nasty as that. But in our little
community there'd be all kinds of jobs that needed doing. You'd want to help
out. In fact, the worst thing you could imagine is your help *not* being
wanted, as if you were some kind of outcast. I've done some really dirty,
messy bits of work in the past that, because I did them with other people
who shared the filth, were actually, strangely, not that bad.
Right. Because you weren't bearing the greatest burden of it. And you didn't have to do it for 50 years of your life. Plus, as someone said before, if its a little community it will work fine. But any system can work with small population samples. Geography counts.

Capitalism gives us a bad impression of work. But work is only physical or
mental effort of some kind, and it's not always bad. It's work to learn the
piano, or play a game, or climb a tree or paint a picture. Hobbies are work.
Reading (and writing) this post is a sort of work.
Uh huh. And they pay the bills. They pay the taxes. ::rolleyes::

Humans like doing things.
Yes. Thats true. I like playing soccer with little kids when I visit my grandmother's house. But the communist dictatorship isn't going to command me to play soccer with little kids. Its going to command me to wade in shit.


You might think - because like me you hate enforced employment - you'd like
nothing better than to do no work. I'd give you a week in front of the TV
eating cheesydoodles, and you'd be bored and restless. Two weeks and you'd
be climbing the walls. Three and a spell down a sewer might start to look
attractive as a change. Four and you'll start to go mad. In fact, you'd die
of boredom and frustration in a very short time if you had nothing to do.
Idleness is not in our nature. We're too creative for that. Doing nothing is
just not interesting enough.
*sigh* I'm not saying that these people are going to just stop doing work...they'll just do it with crappy efficiency because they're uncompensated. The African-American slaves had no choice either, save those who ran away, but they rebelled by simply doing their work lazily. And they suffered for several generations.


I believe communism works, and if you read the sites I posted earlier, you'll find that Russia, China, and Cuba were not in fact Communists. Their governments were more like officials doling out the stuff instead of the workers as communism envisions.

So, there's my two cents.
Russia, China, and Cuba applied communism to reality, and that made them something less than Communist. But so will any other communist society in the future, since Communism simply can not work with Human nature being the way it is, and inevitably will be forever.

Oh and my two cents are worth more than yours because I have a healthy economy. :)

Your argument here is, "Communism does not work because it doesn't do everything to make everybody happy." I'm sorry. Communism does?

In a capitalist society, people work for their own sake. What you don't seem ot understand is that human beings will only work efficiently for thier own sake.

People work for their own sake because that is how the capitalist system works. Everything is at a price, and if we don't strive eight hours a day we can't pay for our rent, our food, our insurance, our car payments, and then WE DIE. That is our incentive to work in a capitalist society. You don't seem to understand that in the history of human kind, capitalism is a very recent thing, in fact has probably been going on for only five hundred years. People have worked, efficiantly, to provide for themselves and others because thats what you did then, otherwise the species wouldn't have survived for long, would they?


I like the little implication in the last sentence. My response to all of this is: You do your friends favors because you are able to without totally screwing up your own life. So what if you had to work with the entire weight of your friends' failures on your shoulders, where you had to work 20 hours a day to feed them? A government that provides food for EVERYBODY requires that EVERYBODY works. If one person slacks off, EVERYBODY ELSE does his work for him. If one person is not quite as capable as the others, EVERYBODY MAKES UP FOR HIS LACK OF PRODUCTIVITY. Since no two human beings are of exactly equal capablities, that means all of the highly productive people are going to be doing the work of the low-productivity people.

You are still under the impression that how much we work is correlated to how much we receive in a true communist society. That is not so - the two are unrelated.


Hmmm, but if Shannon is living in a shelter, then she's probably a very low-productivity person, wouldn't you say? Or else she would have made something of herself? So when she goes on her shift in the sewers, and does less work than the rest of you (even working at 100%, she's still low-productivity), and then you take her home and give her the same food as you are given, don't you ask the question, "Since I did more work, and am consequently more tired, shouldn't I have more food to compensate for my labor?" If you don't have more food than Shannon, tomorrow you're going to be as low-productivity as she is since you're malnourished. And everybody is going to be low-productivity from that point on. How good is that for the economy? And please don't say, "Oh well the government will just give everybody more food." There is a limited amount of food on the earth, believe it or not, living or dead. With incompetent people reproducing as many children as the rest of us, the demand for food will increase even further, and the supply will be pretty crappy. At that point, we will be killing eachother for food. So much for your utopian, absolutely peaceful system.

I have no idea what your example is trying to present. Living in a shelter? She'd live in a house, in a community like the rest of the people. In her community you receive shelter, companionship, food, clothes. She wouldn't be stuck in a house all day, she'd go out of her mind, so naturally she would go out and mingle with her neighbors and be made one of them. With all she would receive, to not do any work would make her feel bad. You for some reason immediately presume she would be inefficient or less productive and your argument goes downhill from there

I'll be damned if I'm going to wade in more shit than the next guy to feed him. He can go to hell for all I care.

Wow, what a guy you are. Perhaps you should think about living in the woods where you hunt for your own food, make your own clothes, and build your own shelter. In a society, that guy next to you helps provide for you because society everything is a common effort. Everyone has a role.



Right. Because you weren't bearing the greatest burden of it. And you didn't have to do it for 50 years of your life. Plus, as someone said before, if its a little community it will work fine. But any system can work with small population samples. Geography counts.

In a true communist society, we would have many small communities, each the size required to provide the basic neccessities.


Uh huh. And they pay the bills. They pay the taxes. ::rolleyes::

Remember in a true communist society there wouldn't be any currency, markets, economy, and thus no bills and taxes :rolleyes:


[QUOTE=Unnilania]Yes. Thats true. I like playing soccer with little kids when I visit my grandmother's house. But the communist dictatorship isn't going to command me to play soccer with little kids. Its going to command me to wade in shit.

A true communist society wouldn't be a dictatorship, it would be a democracy, because that is the only way the society would be able to function correctly. Also, you would do many things to help others, not just wade in shit. You would wade in shit if it was neccessary because of problems.


*sigh* I'm not saying that these people are going to just stop doing work...they'll just do it with crappy efficiency because they're uncompensated. The African-American slaves had no choice either, save those who ran away, but they rebelled by simply doing their work lazily. And they suffered for several generations.


Compensation means getting something in return of doing something. People in a communist society will do stuff and in return get stuff like food, shelter, and all that other stuff. So they are compensated and thus will work efficiently. Dur.


Russia, China, and Cuba applied communism to reality, and that made them something less than Communist. But so will any other communist society in the future, since Communism simply can not work with Human nature being the way it is, and inevitably will be forever.

If you had bothered to read the websites I had linked to earlier, you would have gotten the idea of why those countries failed. But that would have been too much work, wouldn't it? Well, let me explain. For a socialist revolution to happen successfully in a nation, the nation must be a)democratic and b)have a good economy. America and many western nations fit this profile now, but the countries listed before did not. They were backwards. If the western nations would turn communist, the rest of the world would follow because it wouldn't be beneficial otherwise for them.


So let me reiterate. Communism can work, because human nature is shaped by the way society is and isn't set in stone as some critics would try to have us believe. Humans have worked together in the past and can do it again.

People work for their own sake because that is how the capitalist system works. Everything is at a price, and if we don't strive eight hours a day we can't pay for our rent, our food, our insurance, our car payments, and then WE DIE. That is our incentive to work in a capitalist society.
Thats a pretty goddamned good incentive, wouldn't you say? Much stronger than working to help somebody that slacks off.

You don't seem to understand that in the history of human kind, capitalism is a very recent thing, in fact has probably been going on for only five hundred years. People have worked, efficiantly, to provide for themselves and others because thats what you did then, otherwise the species wouldn't have survived for long, would they?
That was totally incoherent. Calm down, then post.




You are still under the impression that how much we work is correlated to how much we receive in a true communist society. That is not so - the two are unrelated.

I was never under that impression. I would not argue with communism if that was my impression. The two are unrelated--and that is the problem.


I have no idea what your example is trying to present. Living in a shelter? She'd live in a house, in a community like the rest of the people. In her community you receive shelter, companionship, food, clothes. She wouldn't be stuck in a house all day, she'd go out of her mind, so naturally she would go out and mingle with her neighbors and be made one of them. With all she would receive, to not do any work would make her feel bad. You for some reason immediately presume she would be inefficient or less productive and your argument goes downhill from there
I misread your example. I thought you were taking this person from lower conditions and bringing them into your own society.

But lets just take off from there, and assume that she is inefficient and unproductive. After all, no two human beings are of the exact same efficiency and productiveness. The example holds.



Wow, what a guy you are. Perhaps you should think about living in the woods where you hunt for your own food, make your own clothes, and build your own shelter. In a society, that guy next to you helps provide for you because society everything is a common effort. Everyone has a role.


Thats odd. My mother works in a shoe store. I dont remember the last time the "person next to her" gave her part of her paycheck. Also, when she did better than the other people, she received a raise from the company. They didn't, because they did nothing to earn it.


In a true communist society, we would have many small communities, each the size required to provide the basic neccessities.
In reality, there is only one earth with a finite amount of space.




A true communist society wouldn't be a dictatorship, it would be a democracy, because that is the only way the society would be able to function correctly. Also, you would do many things to help others, not just wade in shit. You would wade in shit if it was neccessary because of problems.
Oh, so you only wade in shit when you really need to. Thats a huge comfort when I fall down and get a mouthful.





Compensation means getting something in return of doing something. People in a communist society will do stuff and in return get stuff like food, shelter, and all that other stuff. So they are compensated and thus will work efficiently. Dur.

Oh, Dur, you say. Dur. I like that. Lots of character there.

Based on what you just said, I make two radios and you make one radio. Since we both did something, we receive the same pay.

I have a way in which it works out better for me. I kill you, take your money, buy three beers, drink them, then kill myself. Everybody's happier.



If you had bothered to read the websites I had linked to earlier, you would have gotten the idea of why those countries failed. But that would have been too much work, wouldn't it?
Thats a lot of hostility there. Calm the fuck down.

Well, let me explain. For a socialist revolution to happen successfully in a nation, the nation must be a)democratic and b)have a good economy. America and many western nations fit this profile now, but the countries listed before did not. They were backwards. If the western nations would turn communist, the rest of the world would follow because it wouldn't be beneficial otherwise for them.
Stop talking about "those other countries." That's inductive reasoning. I dont give a damn about those other countries, and as you may or may not have noticed depending on how much of this thread you have read, which is apparently not much because the past two posts I have been repeating myself, I haven't been discussing those other countries except when you mentioned them. Because its inductive reasoning to talk about countries in the past.

If the western world turned communist, the rest of the world would because the western world has more guns than the eastern world. The guns would be the reasoning. Not logic. Not a big council of happiness and rainbows and with everybody drinking wine and patting eachother on the back. Just the barrel of a gun. While you may now say, "so ahah!" Think on this: If I put a gun to your head and told you that two and two make five, you wouldn't have a hell of a lot of choice but to nod your head and say, "right, and gravity only exists at the convenience of The Party."

The discussion at hand has not been whether or not the world would turn communist if the Western world did, and that you are trying to change the topic to that is a sign of desperation. The discussion is whether Communism or Capitalism is more feasible.


So let me reiterate. Communism can work, because human nature is shaped by the way society is and isn't set in stone as some critics would try to have us believe. Humans have worked together in the past and can do it again.
Greed is the force that drives humanity. Unless you eliminate greed, Communism is impossible. And if you eliminate greed, humanity will stop progressing, and we'll be eaten by wolves.

Before you reply, please, read the rest of this topic. I have made my position clear throughout, and I refuse to repeat myself again. Also, stay on topic. I'm not nearly stupid enough to fall for your red herrings, and you insult the intelligence of the rest of the forummers with those inept strawmen. If you have no idea what a red herring or a strawman is, I'm not surprised. Look it up.

Thats a pretty goddamned good incentive, wouldn't you say? Much stronger than working to help somebody that slacks off.

Again, you assume everyone will slack off. That is your pessimistic view of human nature, and yes it is pessimistic and not realist.


That was totally incoherent. Calm down, then post.

Alright then, let me explain. Before human societies created money sytems or trade systems, we were hunter/gatherer societies. Everyone in the village would wake up in the morning and have tasks that needed to be done. The men went into the forest or in the plains and killed animals for food while many others gathered plants to eat. The hunters killed enough for the whole village, they didn't just kill enough for themselves and told the others to fuck off. It was in their interest to help the others because they provided different services for them. Some could sew and create the village clothes, make shoes, make medicine, build shelters. This society had no classes because each individual had an important role and worked for the benefit of the village, because as I said before, thats just what you did then.





I misread your example. I thought you were taking this person from lower conditions and bringing them into your own society.

But lets just take off from there, and assume that she is inefficient and unproductive. After all, no two human beings are of the exact same efficiency and productiveness. The example holds.

I don't quite see as how you'd assume that, but okay. I still don't think the example holds. You wrote "Since I did more work, and am consequently more tired, shouldn't I have more food to compensate for my labor?" Yes as a matter of fact, you should. And you would. The United States alone can provide enough food in the world to feed the hungry people. But we don't because access to the food is restricted with markets, and people aren't getting what they need. With markets abolished, we can calculate the demand for products and produce simply what we need.



In reality, there is only one earth with a finite amount of space.

Yes, there is only one earth, but it is possible to break down large spaces on the earth into communities. Right now they are broken down into nations. We are capable of breaking them down smaller, so they are like large neighborhoods instead of nations.




Oh, so you only wade in shit when you really need to. Thats a huge comfort when I fall down and get a mouthful.

Does your mother ever ask you to clean the house or take out the trash even though you don't wan't to because the house is filthy and the trash smells like ass? You do do it though, when she asks you to. It's one of your responsibilities and you don't do it that often, only when you're needed to. If you didn't do it your mother would be upset and you would feel guilty because she does a lot of work for you, making your meals, and listening to your needs. You'd be an asshole not to take out the trash once in awhile after all the things she did for you! Now imagine the community you live in is like your extended family, and they work hard so you can have stuff like your mom does. Wouldn't you be responsible and do what is asked of you to the best of your abilities because that's the gracious and good thing to do? Even if it is yucky and dirty?





Oh, Dur, you say. Dur. I like that. Lots of character there.

Based on what you just said, I make two radios and you make one radio. Since we both did something, we receive the same pay.

I have a way in which it works out better for me. I kill you, take your money, buy three beers, drink them, then kill myself. Everybody's happier.


You're still under the same impression that there would be money. No money. Get it? No markets. No pay. The payment you're thinking of is with money so without money there would be no more pay. Right? Your payment is being able to get the things you need.

Your needs might be different then the needs of ther person next to you. You might have worked harder and thus are more hungry and thirsty. You may need more then the person who worked less. If you are more hungry, then you can go anbd get more food. The work you do and the things you receive are unrelated. And yes, you can get more food, like I said the earth is very capable of producing enough food for everyone.


Thats a lot of hostility there. Calm the fuck down..

Sorry if I seem hostile, many parts of your post were condescending to me. And your last post about my two cents was meant as pure asshattery.


Stop talking about "those other countries." That's inductive reasoning. I dont give a damn about those other countries, and as you may or may not have noticed depending on how much of this thread you have read, which is apparently not much because the past two posts I have been repeating myself, I haven't been discussing those other countries except when you mentioned them. Because its inductive reasoning to talk about countries in the past.

A spoke of those other countries because it is a common argument against communism, by pointing out those countries failures. Instead of waiting for someone to say to me, "Hey, you know it didn't work in China/Russia/Cuba/whateverothercountry!" I wrote ahead to jump the bullet. You responded to it, thus I responded back. That's basically it.

If the western world turned communist, the rest of the world would because the western world has more guns than the eastern world. The guns would be the reasoning. Not logic. Not a big council of happiness and rainbows and with everybody drinking wine and patting eachother on the back. Just the barrel of a gun. While you may now say, "so ahah!" Think on this: If I put a gun to your head and told you that two and two make five, you wouldn't have a hell of a lot of choice but to nod your head and say, "right, and gravity only exists at the convenience of The Party."



The discussion at hand has not been whether or not the world would turn communist if the Western world did, and that you are trying to change the topic to that is a sign of desperation. The discussion is whether Communism or Capitalism is more feasible.

Again, I jumped the bullet. In discussing why communism has not yet happened, I talked about the two requirements a)democracy and b) a healthy economy. Obviously many countries in the world fall short of this, including the previously discussed nations when they started their revolution. If you were to point that out, I already made the argument that the third world would follow the western nations if they became communist because it would be beneficial to them to participate.


Greed is the force that drives humanity. Unless you eliminate greed, Communism is impossible. And if you eliminate greed, humanity will stop progressing, and we'll be eaten by wolves.

That's your take on humanity. I believe if you eliminate greed, humanity will flourish.

Before you reply, please, read the rest of this topic. I have made my position clear throughout, and I refuse to repeat myself again. Also, stay on topic. I'm not nearly stupid enough to fall for your red herrings, and you insult the intelligence of the rest of the forummers with those inept strawmen. If you have no idea what a red herring or a strawman is, I'm not surprised. Look it up.

My goodness, and you were wondering about my earlier hostility?

After looking up red herring and straw man, I can safely say I have no idea what you are talking about. I can only assume you make such accusations because you feel backed into a corner, and you are resorting to insulting my intelligence and integrity. I don't pretend to know everything, I am young and inexperienced. But I have my dreams like everyone else and those dreams include what I can do to make the world a better place. I sincerely believe communism can work.

Also, I don't think you and I are on the same page when defining communism. Repeatedly, after looking back a few posts, you have discussed payments, quotas, big government, which does not coincide with the original Marxist theory of communism. Again, I wish you would look at those sites I posted as they have a wealth of information on the subject.

When I imagine a communist world, I think of multitudes of communities working together for the common good of the world. I think of democracy in this communist society as crucial. The government wouldn't be the all pervading force it is nowadays with police, and court systems, extensive legislature and the like. The government would be the barest of the bare, used only to regulate certain systems. With good free education for every child, everyone can be actively involved in politics, instead of a handful of bureaucrats. They would be informed on the issues, and if an elected leader doesn't do the will of the people, he can be yanked out of office and replaced.

It's getting late, I'll respond to any replies tomorrow.

Private propterty's cool. Socialism.

Again, you assume everyone will slack off. That is your pessimistic view of human nature, and yes it is pessimistic and not realist.

That view is no more realistic. That view is very naive rather than very pessimistic. Even in capitalist societies people 'slack off'. Find ten people in the streets who'd give all their non-essential money to Africa. I'd be surprised if you even found one. Mainly, because they're all walking around the street buying things they don't actually need to survive.
By the same token, find ten people in the streets who'd rather work for a living than win the lottery and have it easy. I would say that only 10% of people in the world truly work because they want to. The other 90% work because they have to. I know I don't know anybody at work who truly likes working. They can like their job better than another job, but they always rush home at 5pm.
If you were fed anyway, and there was no chance of getting a sports car or something for working especially hard, why are those 90% going to work? They don't give a damn about the greater good, they really don't. They care about the national economy not because of the poor people who will suffer in a slump, but because it affects how much they get paid, and how much they have to pay to get things.

Alright then, let me explain. Before human societies created money sytems or trade systems, we were hunter/gatherer societies. Everyone in the village would wake up in the morning and have tasks that needed to be done. The men went into the forest or in the plains and killed animals for food while many others gathered plants to eat. The hunters killed enough for the whole village, they didn't just kill enough for themselves and told the others to fuck off. It was in their interest to help the others because they provided different services for them. Some could sew and create the village clothes, make shoes, make medicine, build shelters. This society had no classes because each individual had an important role and worked for the benefit of the village, because as I said before, thats just what you did then.

To get the clothes made by other villagers, hunter/gatherers would trade a deer. People built their own shelters. Before money, there was barter. If you want something, you have to find something roughly as valuable to trade for it. For example, a pig wouldn't be worth as much as a cow or a horse, so to get a cow or a horse you might need to trade several pigs. And of course, then the value of each individual pig comes into dispute, how fat it is, how much healthier it is than other pigs... this is why money was invented in the first place. Easier.

I don't quite see as how you'd assume that, but okay. I still don't think the example holds. You wrote "Since I did more work, and am consequently more tired, shouldn't I have more food to compensate for my labor?" Yes as a matter of fact, you should. And you would. The United States alone can provide enough food in the world to feed the hungry people. But we don't because access to the food is restricted with markets, and people aren't getting what they need. With markets abolished, we can calculate the demand for products and produce simply what we need.

If the people of the US weren't so greedy, they wouldn't produce so much food in the first place to satisfy all that demand from the greedy people.

Yes, there is only one earth, but it is possible to break down large spaces on the earth into communities. Right now they are broken down into nations. We are capable of breaking them down smaller, so they are like large neighborhoods instead of nations.

Unfortunately for your hopes, the opposite is happening and shows no sign of stopping.

Does your mother ever ask you to clean the house or take out the trash even though you don't wan't to because the house is filthy and the trash smells like ass? You do do it though, when she asks you to. It's one of your responsibilities and you don't do it that often, only when you're needed to. If you didn't do it your mother would be upset and you would feel guilty because she does a lot of work for you, making your meals, and listening to your needs. You'd be an asshole not to take out the trash once in awhile after all the things she did for you! Now imagine the community you live in is like your extended family, and they work hard so you can have stuff like your mom does. Wouldn't you be responsible and do what is asked of you to the best of your abilities because that's the gracious and good thing to do? Even if it is yucky and dirty?

I paid my mother to do the things she did. It was called 'paying your keep'. If you didn't earn your keep, you paid it. I chose to give money instead of work. Even then it was physically impossible for her to work and keep the rest of the family alive, so we had to pitch in, or we would die from starvation, or run out of plates, or be living in trash. Probably why people 'generously' pitch in in other households. They don't want to live in trash.

You're still under the same impression that there would be money. No money. Get it? No markets. No pay. The payment you're thinking of is with money so without money there would be no more pay. Right? Your payment is being able to get the things you need.

Without money, I can guarantee almost 99% that people would almost instantly revert back to the barter system I mentioned before. The barter system was replaced by money because of its inherent flaws -- after all, how do you agree just how many pigs a particular horse is really worth? Money has a set value. Stick a price label on the horse and you don't have to figure out if each note is as fat and succulent as the next.

Your needs might be different then the needs of ther person next to you. You might have worked harder and thus are more hungry and thirsty. You may need more then the person who worked less. If you are more hungry, then you can go anbd get more food. The work you do and the things you receive are unrelated. And yes, you can get more food, like I said the earth is very capable of producing enough food for everyone.

That is what happens now. You get money for your work, and the more important the work, the more money you get, and the more food you can buy.

That's your take on humanity. I believe if you eliminate greed, humanity will flourish.

How do you eliminate greed, exactly? It's like eliminating happiness, or sadness, or love. When its there, its there. Greed is always there. There's nothing you can actually, physically do to eliminate greed. It's part of the human condition; there's nothing you can do about it. Whenever a communist country springs up, there are always people in it who start up black markets, trading things to get more 'stuff' for themselves, to make their lives more comfortable. Mafias, criminal organisations, drug dealers, common thieves. The flaws of past communist attempts are not just based in the leadership of those communist countries, but also in the people. Take away the dictatorships and the secret police, and you still had many people trying to get more 'stuff' than everyone else without working for it.

When I imagine a communist world, I think of multitudes of communities working together for the common good of the world. I think of democracy in this communist society as crucial. The government wouldn't be the all pervading force it is nowadays with police, and court systems, extensive legislature and the like. The government would be the barest of the bare, used only to regulate certain systems. With good free education for every child, everyone can be actively involved in politics, instead of a handful of bureaucrats. They would be informed on the issues, and if an elected leader doesn't do the will of the people, he can be yanked out of office and replaced.

When you imagine a communist world, you do so by imagining a different species as well. Humans are mentally incapable of adapting to communism. The fact that capitalism evolved in the first place proves that. They are greedy. They need things.

And six billion people all directly involved in politics would in itself cause the entire world to cease functioning. Although, on a planet dominated by communism, that number would probably dramatically decrease anyway.

check out www.politicalcompass.org it will explain some personal things about capitalism and communism, there not opposites, maybe on the economic scale, and fascists are definately not capitalists, sorry but ur getting it confused, remember fascism is actually very centrists on economic policies. Its Very Very right wing on social issues, its strictly a social ideologie, its hard to cover economic issues with it. Anarchism is the opposite to communism a true commie is authoritarian on social and economic issues while a true anarchist is liberatarian in economic issues that doesnt mean they cant both be on the left side of the compass but there on the opposite sides of the left, think vertical, if u go to the website i mention its there think of the political plane as a square so bottom left, libertarian and top left commie. facist top center, if u get hitler and stalin to sit down and talk politics they will agree with each other so long as economics can be avoided...it makes sense what that site says. Also i could go on for ever, capitalists dont rob people, the system works wehre if u want something take it and take it fast, in communism if u want something, take a peice and leave it in the public square. Commun ism violates the individuals innate rights to oppurtunity and invention as that individual must give everything to everyone else and gets the same no matter how ahrd his work load is, no incentive towards working, China is growing more capitalist. You know who owns RCA? TCL, a chinese company growing by 40% a year, and i believe there working on buying vivendi universial and sun microsystems could be wrong on those last two though. in 10 years if htis keeps up, 80% of internet usage will be chinese...the only reason China has survived is because it reforms with "western" ideas, such as overtime pay and extra work load pay. Thats another reason why the council and the politburo there are full of 80 year olds, its because thsoe people are the first chinese commies that took the Long march and were part of the revolution, there trying to keep the revolution alive and are actually very angered at the reforms, that there communist grasp is slipping to the right, i bet in 20 years the Chinese communist governemnt will be a ceremonial name it will be so rightist, American republicans would be proud. Thats my peice, sorry for the spelling mistakes, happy new year!!!

PS my nation is Centrist, which is what i am but i lean over to the right more oftent hen not im a on the Right close to the center and more libertarian then authoritarian, basically the typical north american, civil rights and yatta to a point all that freedom democracy and pro-private propriatary activity stuff, u get the drift.

check out www.politicalcompass.org it will explain some personal things about capitalism and communism, there not opposites, maybe on the economic scale, and fascists are definately not capitalists, sorry but ur getting it confused, remember fascism is actually very centrists on economic policies. Its Very Very right wing on social issues, its strictly a social ideologie, its hard to cover economic issues with it. Anarchism is the opposite to communism a true commie is authoritarian on social and economic issues while a true anarchist is liberatarian in economic issues that doesnt mean they cant both be on the left side of the compass but there on the opposite sides of the left, think vertical, if u go to the website i mention its there think of the political plane as a square so bottom left, libertarian and top left commie. facist top center, if u get hitler and stalin to sit down and talk politics they will agree with each other so long as economics can be avoided...it makes sense what that site says. Also i could go on for ever, capitalists dont rob people, the system works wehre if u want something take it and take it fast, in communism if u want something, take a peice and leave it in the public square. Commun ism violates the individuals innate rights to oppurtunity and invention as that individual must give everything to everyone else and gets the same no matter how ahrd his work load is, no incentive towards working, China is growing more capitalist. You know who owns RCA? TCL, a chinese company growing by 40% a year, and i believe there working on buying vivendi universial and sun microsystems could be wrong on those last two though. in 10 years if htis keeps up, 80% of internet usage will be chinese...the only reason China has survived is because it reforms with "western" ideas, such as overtime pay and extra work load pay. Thats another reason why the council and the politburo there are full of 80 year olds, its because thsoe people are the first chinese commies that took the Long march and were part of the revolution, there trying to keep the revolution alive and are actually very angered at the reforms, that there communist grasp is slipping to the right, i bet in 20 years the Chinese communist governemnt will be a ceremonial name it will be so rightist, American republicans would be proud. Thats my peice, sorry for the spelling mistakes, happy new year!!!

PS my nation is Centrist, which is what i am but i lean over to the right more oftent hen not im a on the Right close to the center and more libertarian then authoritarian, basically the typical north american, civil rights and yatta to a point all that freedom democracy and pro-private propriatary activity stuff, u get the drift.
There might have been some form of assertion there, but I couldn't figure it out. I do believe there were a total of three or four sentences in that whole mess. Please, STOP SHOUTING ONTO THE PAGE. Reading the first few sentences i was given the impression of a kid stuttering and drooling. Gross.

Without money, I can guarantee almost 99% that people would almost instantly revert back to the barter system I mentioned before. The barter system was replaced by money because of its inherent flaws -- after all, how do you agree just how many pigs a particular horse is really worth? Money has a set value. Stick a price label on the horse and you don't have to figure out if each note is as fat and succulent as the next.

*applause*
I'd also like to add something to that. Say the government was careful not to let anyone have enough extra to put it on the black market. Then you are down to the only bargaining tool that remains in order to get more for yourself. A gun. A hunting rifle. A butcher knife. A cleverly used piece of twine. Bam, you're dead.

:headbang: Communism

It says I'm a crporate Bordello...so I guess Capitalist

To get the clothes made by other villagers, hunter/gatherers would trade a deer. People built their own shelters. Before money, there was barter. If you want something, you have to find something roughly as valuable to trade for it. For example, a pig wouldn't be worth as much as a cow or a horse, so to get a cow or a horse you might need to trade several pigs. And of course, then the value of each individual pig comes into dispute, how fat it is, how much healthier it is than other pigs... this is why money was invented in the first place. Easier.



http://www.vernonjohns.org/vernjohns/rnhuntng.html

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/readings/hg_myth.html

http://www.rollins.edu/communication/wschmidt/huntergatherers.htm

These are some really good links I found on the subject that discuss it fairly thouroughly. Especially the last link where it talks about similarities of todays workforce and hunter/gatherer societies. Really interesting. A common feature of these societies is indeed the egalitarian aspects between the members and the sharing of wealth. It was only until agriculture came along that real social classes developed and money sytems made.


If the people of the US weren't so greedy, they wouldn't produce so much food in the first place to satisfy all that demand from the greedy people.



The capitalistic nature of business in the United States is what creates the surplus of food that we do. To survive in the market place, businesses need to make profits instead of soley producing the food we need. If you've ever looked down the cereal aisle here, you'd see a box of Fruit Loops and three feet away from it you see a similar box, only the name is changed to Fruity O's or some such thing. I guarentee you they will taste the same. VVhy make different brands have similar products? Because one company saw how much profit it made the other company, so it made something similar. Greed of companies in a capitalist system, not the people themselves, is what creates this.



Unfortunately for your hopes, the opposite is happening and shows no sign of stopping.



I don't quite see what you're saying. Over centuries, many new nations are created, usually they break off of bigger nations because it's easier to manage things when they are small. Look at the Empire of Alexander the Great. He swooped across Europe and the Middle East, creating one nation under which he was in control of. Very shortly after he died, though, the empire broke apart because one central government couldn't control a vast area like that. Even in the United States, there is a central government, but the land is so large, they had to break it down into states to make it managable, and now each state has it's own constitution.



I paid my mother to do the things she did. It was called 'paying your keep'. If you didn't earn your keep, you paid it. I chose to give money instead of work. Even then it was physically impossible for her to work and keep the rest of the family alive, so we had to pitch in, or we would die from starvation, or run out of plates, or be living in trash. Probably why people 'generously' pitch in in other households. They don't want to live in trash.



Exactly, you didn't want to live in a crappy house so you pitched in. As the previous example says, if the sewage sytem was blocked up in your neighborhood, and everyone was pitching in because otherwise you would all die of cholera, wouldn't you do it too? Many reasons surround people participating in society, that is one of those reasons too.



Without money, I can guarantee almost 99% that people would almost instantly revert back to the barter system I mentioned before. The barter system was replaced by money because of its inherent flaws -- after all, how do you agree just how many pigs a particular horse is really worth? Money has a set value. Stick a price label on the horse and you don't have to figure out if each note is as fat and succulent as the next.



If you go down to the mall and look into the shops to see that everything is free, why would you need to trade for anything? You would simply take what you need. Trade would most likely only exist between communities. You say to the trade official nearby, "VVe need x amount of coconuts, if you like we trade for x amount of cloth." The trade official might say, "VVe calculated the amount of cloth needed and it is more around Y amount." From there, you negotiate how much cloth you'll trade with them.




That is what happens now. You get money for your work, and the more important the work, the more money you get, and the more food you can buy.



No, you misunderstood what I was saying. You're thinking of a barter system. I worked X amount of hours so I am credited to Y amount of food. That is not so, the two are unrelated. You can have More than Y amount of food or less depending on what you need, not on what you're acredited to.


How do you eliminate greed, exactly? It's like eliminating happiness, or sadness, or love. When its there, its there. Greed is always there. There's nothing you can actually, physically do to eliminate greed. It's part of the human condition; there's nothing you can do about it. Whenever a communist country springs up, there are always people in it who start up black markets, trading things to get more 'stuff' for themselves, to make their lives more comfortable. Mafias, criminal organisations, drug dealers, common thieves. The flaws of past communist attempts are not just based in the leadership of those communist countries, but also in the people. Take away the dictatorships and the secret police, and you still had many people trying to get more 'stuff' than everyone else without working for it.



I suppose I see eliminating greed as similar to eliminating poverty, or hunger. Not emotions that are natural to humans, like love or happiness, but conditions created by society. People in certain countries have next to nothing because the dictators at top take everything for themselves, and they are able to because of how the system is structured. Structure it differently, so workers are in control of production and distribution, you can eliminate poverty, hunger, and yes, greed. Also, those former countries you mentioned before are not actual communist countries because it is the central governmant that is in control of or production and distribution. Only when workers are in control of their labor can a communist country develope.



When you imagine a communist world, you do so by imagining a different species as well. Humans are mentally incapable of adapting to communism. The fact that capitalism evolved in the first place proves that. They are greedy. They need things.


Look at the above links. Very good, very good...

And six billion people all directly involved in politics would in itself cause the entire world to cease functioning. Although, on a planet dominated by communism, that number would probably dramatically decrease anyway.

Now, you may be right. Let's face it, not a whole lot of people on this Earth are really very educated. Subjects learned in school help us as far as qualifying us to get into a corporation where we slave hours everyday, leaving us coming home exausted and uninterested in educational pursuits. But what if we had a system that freed us of all that work and gave us great leisure time where we could study? VVe can grow collectively smarter and be able to participate in politics, and the real essentials of life. Think of it this way. You know those rich politicians, that run the country? How do you think they got so smart? They were born into wealthy families and as such, didn't have to do much labor. They had alot of time to pursue a greater education that helped them get into office. Imagine if we all had that sort of education. I would think the world would function much better if we had so many smart people running it in the interest of everybody, instead of a few smart people running it in the interest of themselves.

And about the population thing? VVe can only hope that the number decreases. Anyone who says 6 billion+ people on the earth is A-Okay, is nuts.

My country is Capitalist all the way; freedom of Corporate Power!!!


Down with the Commi's: :sniper:

I think the point that Unnilania made has been made previously and I think a solution has been reeched already that is change human nature I mean if humans are so good why cant we change to enable a better system to work?
If we aree so supper then we should bew able to change its just a question of hoe.

And yes the manifesto is out dated that is why I would welcome any sergestions for updateing so as i can gather infomation for a possiable new addition.
The reason that it is out of date is that it was wrriten in the 1800's when its ideas where more relevent.

So i would be gratefull for any ideas. :)

Capitalizt, just like God intended.

Hardly. Investing is when you put funding into something, not when you take funding from something.

Try a better angsty anticapitalist analogy. :P


So, the governmen taking money to create jobs, better the country, etc is robbing. . .

And corporations taking your money to feed themselves more, while screwing nearly all of the rest of society over is a good investment. . .

Oh, those Soviets tried during the years 1939-1944 to make Finland communistic two times, but we gently said 'no thank you' and killed thousands of them.

Communism sucks, it doesn't work...

Communism sucks, it doesn't work...The true and pure communism doesn't work, true. Soviet Union was not a 'real' communistic country.

The true and pure communism doesn't work, true. Soviet Union was not a 'real' communistic country.Yep, but it is still called communistic because you can't get much closer without troubles.

democratic socialist-scandanavian liberal paradise.

I think the point that Unnilania made has been made previously and I think a solution has been reeched already that is change human nature I mean if humans are so good why cant we change to enable a better system to work?
If we aree so supper then we should bew able to change its just a question of hoe.

And yes the manifesto is out dated that is why I would welcome any sergestions for updateing so as i can gather infomation for a possiable new addition.
The reason that it is out of date is that it was wrriten in the 1800's when its ideas where more relevent.

So i would be gratefull for any ideas. :)

I certainly agree, a change in human nature is needed for us to reach a goal. But the question is, is greed genetically programmed into human nature or is it a condition created by the environment? That is a hard question to answer, and scientists still don't know exactly. I believe however, once upon a time, we lived in a primitive communist society (remember the hunter-gatherers) and due to an advance in technology, the environment in which humans lived changed; so in turn, humans had to adapt to that change. That started the road to capitalism.

In the past, there have been old systems that worked reletively okay. But most of those systems have inherit flaws in them. Monarchy and feudalism were extremely common not too long ago in most parts of the world. But the class divide proved unbearable to those who were not noble men. These differences led to revolts and the gradual change to democracy. But the capitalist nature of the old systems remained and still to this day we have class divides.

Most capitalists say the fact that the world came to capitalism shows its superiority. But the human race changes over time, and what once worked may no longer cut it anymore. Whether or not you disagree with communism, you have to agree that capitalism has many flaws. When you look at all the homeless people and families with low incomes struggling to survive another month while some guy somewhere has inherited billions and has twenty cars in his mansion, you have to say to yourself, "Is this the best we can do?".

I have a feeling until social classes are gone, people are going to continue to revolt until a system is in place that caters to everyones needs as best as possible. I believe that system is true communism as written by Marx. In the beginning, the foundations of the system will be a bit weak, but over time it will improve into something everyone can be proud of.

Thats all I have to say for now.

When you look at all the homeless people and families with low incomes struggling to survive another month while some guy somewhere has inherited billions and has twenty cars in his mansion, you have to say to yourself, "Is this the best we can do?".

Yup. Homeless people = unsuccessful. Whose sperm is better to have in the gene pool? A guy who flunked out of high school at 16, "experimented" with every drug possible, and winded up in a back alley, choked to death on his own vomit, or the son of a self-made man? The twenty cars in the garage were not just given to him for no apparent purpose. He, his father, or his father's father must have done something right to earn him the opportunity to drive a hand-made Italian car or two.

Since I can say nothing further without repeating myself, which I won't waste my time doing, I'm going to address the "Everybody wants to help their neighbor" argument.

I don't. I dont give a shit about my neighbors. I care about my family, I care about my friends, I'd put food in my friend's mouth if he needed it, but not if he puts a gun to my head. I doubt I'm the only person who thinks that.

Basically, people act charitable because it makes them feel like a good person to do so. Morality. If people are forced to be charitable, it will no longer be a matter of morality.

You only dont wont to help your neighbor because ypu have grown up in a sosioty where helping your neighbor is undesirable.

Thank you Dhuchas Nadur I think someone is finaly understanding what I have been trying to say. The point you made about weather greed is genetic or enviromental is the point that I made before I wasnt shore but someone (I forget who) said it was genetic. If it is as I hope enviromental this will only make its eradication from human nature as sosioty is easyer to change than genetics and doesnt take any hi-tech genetical engenering which is controversial.
I agree with you again on the argument against communisum put forward by capitalists that capitalisum is better as that is where we are now, as sosioty has not allways been dominated as it is now by the middle class it has changed to that so eventualy it will change so that there is no longer a need for class destinctions.
As i see it sdosioty over time has got alot closer to equality as it started (in recoreded history) with dictatorship then overtime oligarcies (i think thats how its spelt) where formed then democrsesy for limeted nummbers of people then democrasy as we have it. This in my mind shows what i can only describe as Humanities subconshus drive for equality.

Of course capitalism is superior. The communists want only to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. That's why I drink only pure grain alcohol and rainwater.

You only dont wont to help your neighbor because ypu have grown up in a sosioty where helping your neighbor is undesirable.
biiig assumption there. Also a false one. I live in rhode island, which is for the most part a big lets-all-be-religious-and-caring-and-warm-our-neighbors-zone. Also very liberal. I'm an anomaly. Which goes to show, that greed (I'm a greedy bastard) is not an environmental thing. Its an instinct, one which was bred into not just humans, but all animals, for the sake of survival.

Thank you Dhuchas Nadur I think someone is finaly understanding what I have been trying to say. The point you made about weather greed is genetic or enviromental is the point that I made before I wasnt shore but someone (I forget who) said it was genetic.
Sorta genetic. You could make the argument that it was. Its more of an evolutionary trait which is common to all humans, as i have said before, as a survival instinct.

If it is as I hope enviromental this will only make its eradication from human nature as sosioty is easyer to change than genetics and doesnt take any hi-tech genetical engenering which is controversial.
I'd like you to provide me with a reason to eliminate greed. And don't say "we should eliminate greed so communism will work," because thats like tearing down a mountain to build a house, rather than just going and living in the valley. Greed is a necessary survival instinct. We're territorial beings. I don't let you eat my cow because I need to eat it, and if you eat my cow, I will die. I decide that my life is more important to me than yours is and kill you.


I agree with you again on the argument against communisum put forward by capitalists that capitalisum is better as that is where we are now, as sosioty has not allways been dominated as it is now by the middle class it has changed to that so eventualy it will change so that there is no longer a need for class destinctions.
That was rather incoherent. Please explain.

Are you saying that an argument employed by capitalists that capitalism is better simply because it's already here? I've never heard that one.

As i see it sdosioty over time has got alot closer to equality as it started (in recoreded history) with dictatorship then overtime oligarcies (i think thats how its spelt) where formed then democrsesy for limeted nummbers of people then democrasy as we have it. This in my mind shows what i can only describe as Humanities subconshus drive for equality.
Thats an interesting point. I don't see it perhaps as a subconscious drive, since consciousness is on the individual side, but if we are evolving toward equality, that would be very interesting indeed. However, I do not think this is true. I think its an evolution on the social side, where we are finding that democracies and republics can work better than dictatorships or monarchies.