[Caael]

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/183/1229286841270zh6.jpg



Capitalism is an economic system in which land, capital goods, and other resources, are owned, operated and traded chiefly by private individuals or corporations for the purpose of profit.

Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.

In short; in a Capitalistic society, you give everything to the rich people and they spread it among themselves.

In a Communistic society, you give everything to the state who provide everything equally among the people.

Capitalism has been described as the downfall of modern society as the working class, who provide the backbone of all material goods, are being exploited.

As described in The Complete Idiots Guide to Communism;
"Workers sold their labour power for a fixed wage. However, capitalists tried to drive this wage as low as possible, which was determined by the minimum amount the worker needed to support himself and his family. In most cases, the value produced by the worker exceeded the minimum amount he needed to stay alive, and this excess amount went into the pockets of Capitalist owners as profits, which [Karl] Marx referred to as "Surplus Value". According to Marx, this was nothing more than theft"

Capitalism is feudalism on a much larger scale, which has only ever benefitted those at the top. However, there is no defined hierarchy in Capitalism; you dont work your way up from working class into the aristocrats at the top; you're either born into working class, or born into fat-cats, which means those who do nothing reap the benefits, and those who do everything get next to nothing.

Communism is the solution to the class struggle, in where there is no middle-ground; everybody is given the same, regardless of position. There are sub-branches of Communism, however. An ideology Mao Tse-tung adopted was that work is proportionate; "Farmers would all get paid the same, though if a farmer was to care for animals as well as his normal duties, him and his family would recieve additional benefits."

So where do you stand in the class struggle? What are your views and ideas on the subject? Discuss.

[Toasty]

Could you be a little less Liberal in your opening post?

Pure Capitalism doesn't work. It hasn't been proven, as there hasn't yet been a purely capitalistic society that has failed (at least as far as I know. I don't even think that there's a purely capitalistic society to begin with), but logic says it will fail.

Equally, pure Socialism/Communism will fail as well. Only for this, we have solid proof. ake a look at the Soviet Union. It doesn't exist anymore.


Communism fails because of one major flaw: It relies too much on the goodwill of human beings. Although it would be nice if everyone in the world was selfless and put others before themselves, such a thing is not true.

The problem is, no matter how much you work, if you live in a comunistic/socialist society you will never make any more than anyone else. You will never own any more land than someone else, have better posessions (house, car, appliances, etc.).

Because of the way Socialism works, you can earn just as much money on a paper route as you could if you were a brain surgeon. Because of that, people will always choose the easiest jobs. Even if there isn't a need for any more people to fill that niche.

That's what happened to the Soviet Union, and that's why it collapsed.



In pure capitalism, all the money floats to the upper class. That is true. But at least in capitalism, you get a chance to rise up and gain higher status. You're rewarded for working harder (most of the time). However, pure capitalism will fail because chances are, the lower classes will eventually make up the majority of the population. Because they are the majority, they will do something to change the government. Whether it be a hostile takeover, or a change in policies via national vote.


However, there is something that must also be pointed out. The earth has a fixed amount of resources. It can only support so many people. I must also point out that ther is a hell of a lot of people living on earth. Because of this, you only have two options:

A) Part of the population will live relatively comfortably while the rest live absolutely miserable lives (the number of people living miserably will also increase, or the general well being of the entire population will decline as the population increases) [moderated capitalism]

or

B) The entire population of the planet lives sub-par lives (the general well being of the entire population will decrease as the population increases) [moderated socialism]



From my point of view, the best choice is moderated capitalism (i.e. capitalistic society with bits and pieces of socialism to keep it from going out of control). In the end, it's far more likely to survive than moderated socialism (sociealistic society with bits and pieces of capitalism to keep it from dieing) because you'll still have the ability to rise in class depending on your effort.


My point is, Capitalism has the growth, and Socialism has the stability. But you can't hope to survive if you can't grow. However, you still need a little bit of stability to keep from growing out of control.

[Golden Legacy]

I personally subscribe to a mix of a capitalist and socialist structure. Exploitation of the free market has largely marginalized the middle class in today's society. Let's not forget that the fight for labors' rights in the 19th and 20th centuries occurred because workers were subjected to near sub-human conditions to maximize output and profit, and capitalism fails to put on a human face to the worker. We're seeing that today with CEOs giving themselves lucrative eight figure bonuses while cutting benefits and laying off employees.

I feel strongly about that, which is why I believe in a structure that guarantees a basic standard of living for all. However, I do disagree with communism in that it negates those who genuinely put in effort. I do not believe a well-learned individual with a complex skill, such as doctors or lawyers, should be forced to limit themselves. Giving bonuses under certain systems is a way to amend this, but I don't know if it can go far enough.

It is also worth pointing out that the media has unfortunately corrupted the image of communism. People automatically associate it with tyranny, despite the fact that democracy can go hand in hand. There has never been a "true" communist country, not even the USSR, as the essence of communism would have a government of the people, not a single power on top of everyone, that's contrary to the entire point of all people being equal.

Toasty, on Dec 14 2008, 08:38 PM, said:

In pure capitalism, all the money floats to the upper class. That is true. But at least in capitalism, you get a chance to rise up and gain higher status. You're rewarded for working harder (most of the time).

There comes a point when 70% of the wealth earned is siphoned away to 10% of the population that "working for it" proves little. Most people remain in their social class despite working all their lives, because what they can possibly earn is already so constrained.

[Caael]

Golden Legacy, on Dec 15 2008, 01:44 AM, said:

It is also worth pointing out that the media has unfortunately corrupted the image of communism. People automatically associate it with tyranny, despite the fact that democracy can go hand in hand. There has never been a "true" communist country, not even the USSR, as the essence of communism would have a government of the people, not a single power on top of everyone, that's contrary to the entire point of all people being equal.

Communism has never been the same since the Red Scare. Before America released a wave of propaganda over the country, condemning anybody having any Communist beliefs at all (due to Joseph McCarthy, people would be fired from their jobs and similar rejections if they were so much as accused of being slightly communist.) In the late 1800's and early 1900's, Communism was a widely accepted idea; due to the First International set up by Karl Marx. At the time, the majority of the population were working class, and therefore such a large "force" would be hard for the government to deal with, which is why revolutions sparked all over Europe. Unfortunately for some, such as the Paris Commune, it ended in a bloody mess where anybody involved in Communist activity was shot.

Since the collapse of the first International and the failed rebellion of the Paris Commune, Communism has been a much more risky subject; scared that revolution would just be crushed like the events in France. After the Red Scare, Communism was almost a Taboo subject where it's associated with tyranny, as GL noted, and that somehow it's a bad thing. This is why the Media and propaganda dont help. Those who ridicule Communism are most often the ones who dont know anything about it, and that they only ridicule it because everybody else is doing so. Infact, those who ridicule it are largely those who would benefit from it. I hate to stereotype, but your average American will probably be against Communism due to nothing more than peer pressure.

Another reason for the ridicule (i've been using this word a lot) of Communism is that people are so used to democratic and capitalist society, that they see the change as a bad thing; there's no denying Communism would completely change the values we have previously held. Democrats and Capitalists may disagree, in saying that Communism and the fair trade part does not correlate with individual skill. For example, Farmer Brian works extremely hard and gets twice as much done compared to farmer Billy, who sits around doing nothing, however they get the same pay. This is where Mao's correlation idea comes in; where what you do is directly proportional to what you get in return. While this isn't really "true" Communism, it negates the argument that is sometimes brought up.

And Toasty, I wasn't aware I was being liberal. I was trying to be as neutral as possible.

Quote

However, there is something that must also be pointed out. The earth has a fixed amount of resources. It can only support so many people. I must also point out that ther is a hell of a lot of people living on earth. Because of this, you only have two options:

A) Part of the population will live relatively comfortably while the rest live absolutely miserable lives (the number of people living miserably will also increase, or the general well being of the entire population will decline as the population increases) [moderated capitalism]

or

:D The entire population of the planet lives sub-par lives (the general well being of the entire population will decrease as the population increases) [moderated socialism]



From my point of view, the best choice is moderated capitalism (i.e. capitalistic society with bits and pieces of socialism to keep it from going out of control). In the end, it's far more likely to survive than moderated socialism (sociealistic society with bits and pieces of capitalism to keep it from dieing) because you'll still have the ability to rise in class depending on your effort.


My point is, Capitalism has the growth, and Socialism has the stability. But you can't hope to survive if you can't grow. However, you still need a little bit of stability to keep from growing out of control.

That's a very extreme situation; hopefully something we will never have to experience in our lifetimes. However, B would be the best solution as in A, you have the very extremes while in B you have everybody in the same predicament where nobody is favoured over anybody else.

However, I dont think it's possible for Communism to work any more. It's slowly diminished and now there's only about 3 Communist countries (Cuba, N. Korea and S. Korea). Due to the Red Scare, the Collapse of the Internationals and the general rejection of Communism, coupled with the "perfect society" that Communism needs to work in, I doubt it can ever work. Marx described it as the Final Stage of Human society; evolving into a classless, stateless society of Pure Communism. Hopefully, for future generations this can be a possibility, however this is extremely unlikely. Due to capitalism, the world has become a very materialistic place. If Communism were to work in the current world, it relies on everybody giving up what they previously had and moving into a completely different way of living. However, Communism cannot work purely, because without Mao's idea of correlation, it's not as fair a society as the ideologies claim it to be. The more systems you incorporate to try and make Communism work with free will, the more Capitalist it slowly becomes; those who work harder earn more, slowly bringing classes back into the picture, and building a hierarchy back in, and then you're back to square one.

Basically, for Communism to work, everybody needs to work just as hard as each other with no middle ground. This is nigh-impossible so Communism can probably never work, due to the materialistic values everybody now holds. 100 years ago, had Marx succeeded in completing his second and third volumes of Das Kapital, Communism and Capitalism would be more universally accepted ideas, and the world would have be a different place.

[Toasty]

Caael, on Dec 14 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

And Toasty, I wasn't aware I was being liberal. I was trying to be as neutral as possible.

Meh, it just came across to me as "Capitalism favors evil money whoring people and Communism is the perfect society", but not quite that extreme.

I mean, capitalism obviously does favor those at the top, but you also have to remember that practically everyone has a chance of climbing to the top. Every upper class American has one of two things in common. They either had the persistance and work ethic to climb to the top, or they won the lottery/inherited a crapload of cash. I'm pretty sure that there's far more people in the former category, especially if you disregard actors, who kind of fall somewhere inbetween (I mean, it's not like it's that hard to become an actor, and acting isn't really hard. You just have to be born with the talent).

Likewise, communism is a great idea in theory, but it's not a perfect solution.

Caael, on Dec 14 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

That's a very extreme situation; hopefully something we will never have to experience in our lifetimes. However, B would be the best solution as in A, you have the very extremes while in B you have everybody in the same predicament where nobody is favoured over anybody else.

The only problem is that in B, no one's life is even slightly fun to live in, and the only thing to look foreward to is that life will only get worse.

In A, let's say that half the population lives like the middle class does now (about 50-60K salaries), and the rest live like the lower class (say, 20-30K salaries). Living conditions may be bad for the lower class, but they at least have the hope of achieving better living standards. And if some huge war breaks out and the world population takes a hit, well then the number of people living ****ty lives will decrease too.


I think the main reason for why a lot of people like the idea of socialism, is because it appears to help those in need.

Unfortunately, because of the way the balance between population and resources work, the only thing that can come of it, is to make the live of the poor slightly better, and the lives of the wealthy plumet considerably.

Basically, we can all live in poverty, or some of us can live decent lives while the rest live in poverty.


Anyway, I'm the kind of person that either want's to have the best, or the worst. I hate getting something that's useful, but still sub-par. Afterall, if it's still useful, then I've lost my only reason to obtain something better.

If times are really tough, it makes me want to work that much harder to make things better. But if I'm in the middle, and I can at least get by, I no longer have the drive to climb to the top. It really pisses me off sometimes, but I can't imagine living in any other way. I guess everything else just seems boring. But that's just what I'm like.

I suppose that's one reason why I'm pro-capitalism. Though I still realise that capitalism needs some kind of regulation.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Dec 15 2008, 03:27 AM, said:

Meh, it just came across to me as "Capitalism favors evil money whoring people and Communism is the perfect society", but not quite that extreme.

I mean, capitalism obviously does favor those at the top, but you also have to remember that practically everyone has a chance of climbing to the top. Every upper class American has one of two things in common. They either had the persistance and work ethic to climb to the top, or they won the lottery/inherited a crapload of cash. I'm pretty sure that there's far more people in the former category, especially if you disregard actors, who kind of fall somewhere inbetween (I mean, it's not like it's that hard to become an actor, and acting isn't really hard. You just have to be born with the talent).

Likewise, communism is a great idea in theory, but it's not a perfect solution.
The only problem is that in B, no one's life is even slightly fun to live in, and the only thing to look foreward to is that life will only get worse.

In A, let's say that half the population lives like the middle class does now (about 50-60K salaries), and the rest live like the lower class (say, 20-30K salaries). Living conditions may be bad for the lower class, but they at least have the hope of achieving better living standards. And if some huge war breaks out and the world population takes a hit, well then the number of people living ****ty lives will decrease too.
I think the main reason for why a lot of people like the idea of socialism, is because it appears to help those in need.

Unfortunately, because of the way the balance between population and resources work, the only thing that can come of it, is to make the live of the poor slightly better, and the lives of the wealthy plumet considerably.

Basically, we can all live in poverty, or some of us can live decent lives while the rest live in poverty.
Anyway, I'm the kind of person that either want's to have the best, or the worst. I hate getting something that's useful, but still sub-par. Afterall, if it's still useful, then I've lost my only reason to obtain something better.

If times are really tough, it makes me want to work that much harder to make things better. But if I'm in the middle, and I can at least get by, I no longer have the drive to climb to the top. It really pisses me off sometimes, but I can't imagine living in any other way. I guess everything else just seems boring. But that's just what I'm like.

I suppose that's one reason why I'm pro-capitalism. Though I still realise that capitalism needs some kind of regulation.

But due to the corrupt society we live in, half of the middle class people in A did nothing to achieve their position and yet still live a better life. How is this fair in any way, while those who have worked hard to achieve anything they get in life are still stuck at the bottom? I'm sure you'd have a much different view if you were stuck at the bottom.

Plus, in B, everybody is equal no matter what position they hold. Even if every single person is in horrible conditions, there is nobody better off than you for envy to set in; everybody is in the same predicament, making everything easier to work around. For example, in A where it's a half and half split, the upper class are going to want to siphon as much money away from the poorer half as possible, just so they can increase their standards of living. Greed is the main problem causer for everything. The lower class are much more humble; yes, they desire better living standards but because they deserve and need it, not just because they can.

I'll draw a diagram of this tomorrow and scan it in, because i'm too tired to explain it in words right now, detailing how A wouldn't work and would eventually lead to it's own collapse. Communism, while not ideal in an extreme situation such as the one described, is much more sustainable and reliable. While Capitalism has good living standards for some, (aside from this sometimes not being deserved), the Capitalism system will always fail due to revolts and furthered oppression of the working class. Capitalism is like a weight on a spring. The spring is the working class, and the weight is the upper class. The more money the upper class takes, the heavier the weight gets, pushing the spring down. Eventually, the spring has built up too much tension and pushes back up. Sometimes the weight will land back down on the spring, crushing that small window of freedom they had, but most of the time the weight will miss the spring, causing the weight to give in to the springs demands, though slowly coming back to power. It's a vicious cycle.

"Along with the constantly diminishing number of magnates of capital, who upsurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, and exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working class....The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production....The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriators."

[Gio]

Rather than read the essays posted above I am just going to post my opinion. I think you need a happy medium. You can't be to socialistic, and you can't be to capitalistic either. I wrote a paper on this for my comp class, but I can't seem to find it. There are some pretty distubring facts out there regarding both capitalism and socialism. Especially when it comes to taxes in America.

[TheEnglishman]

I'd agree. You're never going to find the perfect system, so it's just a case of trying to get as close as possible to a fair one.

[Ryu Gaia]

Since I was having this argument last night, I'll throw my two cents in. Caael, I think you're an Ellseworth Toohey and that if your opening post was "as neutral as possible," you clearly have no idea what the word 'neutral' means.

[Caael]

Ellseworth Toohey? Never heard that phrase before.

And it is neutral, whether you like it or not, Capitalism is causing the downfall of society and exploiting the workers. Those are facts, not opinions. And you realise this is a topic for opinions. The first part of the opening was neutral, and the rest was my opinion. I'm not going to change my views just because you dont like it.

[Gio]

Caael, on Dec 15 2008, 12:04 PM, said:

Ellseworth Toohey? Never heard that phrase before.

And it is neutral, whether you like it or not, Capitalism is causing the downfall of society and exploiting the workers. Those are facts, not opinions. And you realise this is a topic for opinions. The first part of the opening was neutral, and the rest was my opinion. I'm not going to change my views just because you dont like it.

See that is where you would need a touch of socialism and government regulation on business. It isn't capitalism that is exploiting workers. It is people that are exploiting workers. That is why if you have some regulations stuck in there to balance it out a bit then a capitalistic society would be fine. You just have enough socialistic policies to balance out the bad parts of capitalism. Same goes with socialism. You need just a bit of capitalism to balance out the negatives of socialism. Both systems work fine, therefore it is just a matter of preference, and while I may prefer capitalism it isn't wrong or stupid to prefer socialism.

[Caael]

But how can you have Capitalistic communism? If you had a system where workers instead of being exploited, would all be paid the same, then it's communism. I dont see how there can be a middle ground.

[Eugine]

Caael, you did work on this topic or something? You have some nice arguments except for your obvious Wikipedia plagiarism.

Anyway, I can't get into details as you did, but I'm on the side of free market capitalism. I think you have a negative view towards capitalism because you think of corporatism instead.
I can't defend the free market with those expensive jargons you used, but I can say this:

Look at migration patterns -
Do people migrate to capitalist countries or to socialist countries? I did not see Americans migrating to USSR. I do not see Floridians boating to Cuba. I do not see many in Latin America migrating to Venezuela. People move to the better system.
Just look at the difference between North and South Korea...

And if you believe in communism so much, why don't you start sharing your games, clothes and money with the less fortunate? Becuase you know, the only difference between communism and charity is that with charity you share your stuff, while with communism other people share your stuff.
(I really need to research the difference between socialism and communism. Caael, give me the difference =])

But anyway, this topic is too huge to say one system is better than another.

[Legolastom]

Eugine, on Dec 15 2008, 08:56 PM, said:

Caael, you did work on this topic or something? You have some nice arguments except for your obvious Wikipedia plagiarism.

Anyway, I can't get into details as you did, but I'm on the side of free market capitalism. I think you have a negative view towards capitalism because you think of corporatism instead.
I can't defend the free market with those expensive jargons you used, but I can say this:

Look at migration patterns -
Do people migrate to capitalist countries or to socialist countries? I did not see Americans migrating to USSR. I do not see Floridians boating to Cuba. I do not see many in Latin America migrating to Venezuela. People move to the better system.
Just look at the difference between North and South Korea...

And if you believe in communism so much, why don't you start sharing your games, clothes and money with the less fortunate? Becuase you know, the only difference between communism and charity is that with charity you share your stuff, while with communism other people share your stuff.
(I really need to research the difference between socialism and communism. Caael, give me the difference =])

But anyway, this topic is too huge to say one system is better than another.

Ok before you post try reading other peoples posts and, maybe try not to have such an ignorant opinion on yet another topic.

[Caael]

Eugine, on Dec 15 2008, 09:56 PM, said:

Caael, you did work on this topic or something? You have some nice arguments except for your obvious Wikipedia plagiarism.

Anyway, I can't get into details as you did, but I'm on the side of free market capitalism. I think you have a negative view towards capitalism because you think of corporatism instead.
I can't defend the free market with those expensive jargons you used, but I can say this:

Look at migration patterns -
Do people migrate to capitalist countries or to socialist countries? I did not see Americans migrating to USSR. I do not see Floridians boating to Cuba. I do not see many in Latin America migrating to Venezuela. People move to the better system.
Just look at the difference between North and South Korea...

And if you believe in communism so much, why don't you start sharing your games, clothes and money with the less fortunate? Becuase you know, the only difference between communism and charity is that with charity you share your stuff, while with communism other people share your stuff.
(I really need to research the difference between socialism and communism. Caael, give me the difference =])

But anyway, this topic is too huge to say one system is better than another.

All I took from wikipedia were the definitions of Capitalism and Communism, which I then simplified.

Quote

And if you believe in communism so much, why don't you start sharing your games, clothes and money with the less fortunate? Becuase you know, the only difference between communism and charity is that with charity you share your stuff, while with communism other people share your stuff.

You obviously dont understand communism. Do you think the USSR under Stalins rule would all share everything? Communism means you give everything to the state, who distribute it evenly among everybody. That doesn't mean you have to share everything you own, it means you'll own exactly the same as the next person.

Also, your view of migration is very narrow minded. You realise other factors could influence somebody migrating or not migrating to a certain place? Russia is very cold all year round; most people would not want to move from most likely a warmer climate into a tundra one.

Plus Russia isn't even Communist any more you fool, it's a Republic.

[Eugine]

Thanks for the suggestion Legolas =]

Anyway, Caael like I said, charity is similar to communism. Charity is voluntarily giving to the "state", while communism is the state taking it from you involuntarily.
Simple question:
Are you charitable?

Edit: I said did. Meaning Soviet Union era.

[Caael]

While I can see what you mean by the comparison, you are still wrong.

char·i·ty (chr-t)
n. pl. char·i·ties
1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
2. Something given to help the needy; alms.
3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.
5. Indulgence or forbearance in judging others. See Synonyms at mercy.
6. often Charity Christianity The theological virtue defined as love directed first toward God but also toward oneself and one's neighbors as objects of God's love.

Communism is first and foremost based on equality. The working class benefit the most, as usually the working class would suffer from poor living conditions as they were given the minimum wage enough to keep them alive. Communism provides the same wage for everybody, regardless of position which basically eliminates the class barriers.

Charities are just organisations set up for various reasons; nothing to do with the state. And in a Communist Society, you're not held at gunpoint to give everything to the state because that's not what happens. Instead of all the money from the labour going to the corporates at the top, all the money goes to the state who then distribute it among the labourers, instead of keeping it.

[Eugine]

Still, are you charitable? Answer that question.

And, I'm just gonna move on from my comparison, because you're using the "formal" definitions.
But basically,
If you give your money to somebody else, that makes you charitable, but if you give my money to somebody else, that makes you a communist. Simple.

[Caael]

Your analogy is way off. You're generalising communism too much here. If I give your money to somebody else, then thats called giving, not a communist. You cant define communism in such a naive, and frankly, ignorant way before knowing more on the subject. Communism isn't about being charitable or giving, it's far to complex to describe in a sentance.

And no, i'm not Charitable but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Eugine]

My analogy stands. It's as basic as I you can get. Communism is forced charity.

I hope you know, my country was communist =_=
I hope you know, I have family in communist Cuba =_=
I have lots of bad stories which relates to communism.

If you love communism so much, sure, go move to Cuba. If you want to live in a country where the state has the final say in everything you do then sure, go ahead.

Oh damn, you just have to look at how China and Cuba is run to know communism is terrible. I don't know why you even endorse it.

And, I asked if you are charitable because of one thing:
If you're not charitable, you sure can't live in a communist country.

[Caael]

*sigh*

I never said Communism works or has worked, I said it's a good theory that nobody has managed to successfully pull off so far. Stalin and Mao controlled everybody under complete totalitarian rule, executing anybody opposing them, Fidel Castro isn't a true Communist because he desired power more than anything. No country has truly been successfully communist so far because it relies on there being no free will or corruptness in the world.

I mentioned several times in previous post that I doubt communism can work in a modern day world, as everybody is so materialistic that they wont just give up everything they've worked for to live in a better, communist state.

And will you please stop with the charity analogy? You are wrong, it goes much deeper than just taking and giving to other people, you dont seem to understand that.

I dont love Communism so much, I just think it's an interesting concept and it's a shame that the leaders of previous Communist states were so corrupt.

[Eugine]

Sure, I agree with you there. In theory communism is the perfect system, where everyone is equal... but in reality, it just does not work. And it's violent.

Just read these links.
http://en.wikipedia..../Maurice_Bishop

"the PRA was used as a tool to commit human rights abuses, such as torture and detention of political dissidents without trial."

http://en.wikipedia...._Jewel_Movement

Sure, communism may have its benefits, but I honestly think the disadvantages outweighs the advantages.

[Caael]

Communism doesn't work in the real world. Those links you posted aren't due to Communism as a system, but due to the people in charge of the systems. Perfect communism cannot be achieved with a leader filled with greed.

It's sometimes why I consider Anarchy of being a good idea...no official leaders means nobody enforcing unnecessary regimes...

[Gio]

Caael, on Dec 15 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

But how can you have Capitalistic communism? If you had a system where workers instead of being exploited, would all be paid the same, then it's communism. I dont see how there can be a middle ground.

First off you can t really have capitalism and communism, and do be honest I despise communism. Mainly because it hasn't ever worked and to be honest I don't think it ever will. I think communism would end up turning a perfectly good person into a greedful dictator.

When I talk about middle ground I mean between capitalism and socialism.

[Caael]

Gio, on Dec 16 2008, 12:14 AM, said:

First off you can t really have capitalism and communism, and do be honest I despise communism. Mainly because it hasn't ever worked and to be honest I don't think it ever will. I think communism would end up turning a perfectly good person into a greedful dictator.

When I talk about middle ground I mean between capitalism and socialism.

LOL

It works the other way round. If the money is shared equally between everybody fairly, there is no possible way for greed to interfere because there is no money to take because it's been shared out.

Expand on this more.

[Eugine]

It will be great to see a communist democracy. That's when we'll know how well communism works.

And Gio sure. I'm a fan of mixed economy.

[Legolastom]

Well lucky the American people have the freedom to vote for Communism if they feel like it, amirite?

[Eugine]

And so do the British.

[Caael]

Legolastom, on Dec 16 2008, 12:30 AM, said:

Well lucky the American people have the freedom to vote for Communism if they feel like it, amirite?

Eugine, on Dec 16 2008, 12:31 AM, said:

And so do the British.

Where are you going with this? What are you trying to prove, tom?

[Golden Legacy]

The reason why there has never been a true communist structure in place is that the people are forced into equality below the highest possible standards of living. They are equal but subjugated to a universally low standard as determined by the state. As Caael said, the ideal condition for communism would be the people themselves establishing equality and ensuring that there is no "middle man", notably the state, to determine how low or high that standard of equality should be.

[Gio]

Caael, on Dec 15 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

LOL

It works the other way round. If the money is shared equally between everybody fairly, there is no possible way for greed to interfere because there is no money to take because it's been shared out.

Expand on this more.

Not really talking about the greed for money. I was talking more about greed for power. If communism was to work there would be the need for a lot of government regulations and the power might go to whoever heads the government.

And eugine is right. In theory and communist democracy would work, and the democracy would keep people from staying in a position of power for to long.

[Caael]

Gio, on Dec 16 2008, 01:45 AM, said:

Not really talking about the greed for money. I was talking more about greed for power. If communism was to work there would be the need for a lot of government regulations and the power might go to whoever heads the government.

And eugine is right. In theory and communist democracy would work, and the democracy would keep people from staying in a position of power for to long.

I haven't considered that before...a communist democracy doesn't sound bad actually lol.

[Toasty]

I'd much rather have a capitalistic democracy with a few socialist ideals to keep things in check. It's quite obvious that a pure form of either won't work, anyway, and capitalism allows for the most freedom tbh.


[EDIT] and Caael, humans will always find something to be greedy about. Doesn't matter if it's material or not. "There are two things that I know to be infinte. The universe, and human intelligence. And I'm not entirely sure about the universe".

Caael, on Dec 15 2008, 10:04 AM, said:

Ellseworth Toohey? Never heard that phrase before.

And it is neutral, whether you like it or not, Capitalism is causing the downfall of society and exploiting the workers. Those are facts, not opinions. And you realise this is a topic for opinions. The first part of the opening was neutral, and the rest was my opinion. I'm not going to change my views just because you dont like it.

No no, the truth isn't always neutral. Besides that, it's still your opinion.

I'm not saying capitalism is 100% innocent, because to be honest, it certainly does make it easier to be greedy. However, people will be greedy no matter what setting it's in. Doesn't matter whether it's capitalism or communism.


Infact, to be perfectly honest, there isn't a single form of government in the universe that can be perfect without having "perfect selfless leaders" in it's office.

The only difference between communism and capitalism in this aspect, is that one depends far less on the goodwill of humanity to survive, and the other one depends a lot more. Communism will never be succesful because the world isn't perfect.

On the other hand, while capitalism may never be perfect for the same reason, it will still be able to survive (and survive much longer if it has some light regulation to keep things in check).



I'm not saying you don't have a right to an opinion or anything, but there's no getting past that the opening post isn't neutral. Whether it's true or not, it's still a moderately left idea.

Caael, on Dec 15 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

Your analogy is way off. You're generalising communism too much here. If I give your money to somebody else, then thats called giving, not a communist. You cant define communism in such a naive, and frankly, ignorant way before knowing more on the subject. Communism isn't about being charitable or giving, it's far to complex to describe in a sentance.

And no, i'm not Charitable but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

To be honest Caael, it's not just giving. You're taking the money away from Eugine, whether he concents to it or not. In an extreme generalization, you could say that the only difference between theft and communism, is that communism's legal. But that's a bit extreme. You could go further however, and say that it may in essence be stealing, but the theft is for the betterment of those in need. Not those with greed.

But really, it's not just giving, and it's not outright theft either. It's communism.

[Saturos S.]

Communism is a great system, if you want to be moral. Everyone's equal, yay?

Everyone has the same amount of money despite what you do. It didn't fail because of their leaders being corrupt, focussing on keeping power and such. It failed because it isn't rewarding. If you spent 8 years of elementary school, then 6 years of high school and go study medicine for 6-7 years and end up earning just as much as a lorrydriver. What's the point?

Captalism is rewarding, (maybe not always). But if you're able to have a good start, you have a good set of brains and ambition, then you can do anything.

As for the democracy we have now, let's just quote Winston Churchill on that. "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." As far as I'm concerned people who can't argue their voting choice properly shouldn't be allowed to vote, getting rid of 'the sheep effect.'

[Eugine]

I agree SS =]

I like to put it this way:
Capitalism: Some people win, some people lose.
Communism: Even if you win, you still lose.

[Golden Legacy]

Now that's a bit of an oversimplification Eugine. Yes, in Capitalism, people "win", but when it reigns free of any standards or laws it's a select few at the expense of the majority. In Communism, many of those that would fall through the cracks in capitalism, being exploited and not getting compensation for the effort they put in (since all the aristocrats dominate), at least have a chance.

No doubt though that a mix of the ideas is fairest.

[Gio]

Saturos Striker, on Dec 16 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

Communism is a great system, if you want to be moral. Everyone's equal, yay?

Everyone has the same amount of money despite what you do. It didn't fail because of their leaders being corrupt, focussing on keeping power and such. It failed because it isn't rewarding. If you spent 8 years of elementary school, then 6 years of high school and go study medicine for 6-7 years and end up earning just as much as a lorrydriver. What's the point?

Captalism is rewarding, (maybe not always). But if you're able to have a good start, you have a good set of brains and ambition, then you can do anything.

As for the democracy we have now, let's just quote Winston Churchill on that. "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." As far as I'm concerned people who can't argue their voting choice properly shouldn't be allowed to vote, getting rid of 'the sheep effect.'

This is why I like capitalism the best.

Eugine, on Dec 16 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

I agree SS =]

I like to put it this way:
Capitalism: Some people win, some people lose.
Communism: Even if you win, you still lose.

And I liked the way eugine summed it up in short.

[Legolastom]

Gio, on Dec 17 2008, 04:36 AM, said:

This is why I like capitalism the best.
And I liked the way eugine summed it up in short.

Thats... nice.

[Gio]

Legolastom, on Dec 18 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

Thats... nice.

Isn't it.....

[Legolastom]

Gio, on Dec 19 2008, 04:18 AM, said:

Isn't it.....

Yes......

[Caael]

Post something relevant or gtfo.

[Legolastom]

Hello chaps.

I hate to break it to everyone, but I have not read a single intelligent thing in this entire thread. No one here knows anything about either capitalism or communism. As a vetern myself of everyone from Marx to von Hayek I'm sorely unimpressed.

For one, the typical teenage boy ramblings about 'happy mediums' and 'I think there needs to be a balance really' are utterly redundant and contribute nothing to the world or this topic.
Secondly, and the most sad and brainwashed of all is the way people even bother to talk about the Soviet Union. Someone on the first page described it as pure communism! HAHAHA. Here is a lesson for you all, the USSR was Mixed Economy State Socialism. Remember that little phrase. What I'm saying is the USSR was a warped form of capitalism with socialist perfume on.
Thirdly Communism does not depend on 'human goodwill.' What a silly thing to say. It is an economic system and to even talk about human goodwill is crass and unsophisitcated to a considerable degree. It's like people who say 'Communism will never work because of human nature!' I guess if you tell people something enough times they start to believe it. Who needs a basic understanding of politics and philosophy? Canned intellect straight from Faux News. If you think communism will never work you probably don't know much about capitalism, let alone communism. I've read these posts a million times before on a million different, mainly American, message boards. The generic catchphrases you guys use to describe these systems frighten me, that they are so deeply ingrained into the psyche of generation after generation.

It's pathetic that the real definitions of communism are available in short setences but people still propogate political ignorance. I'm not advocating any system here, but I'm really annoyed at how people still talk. Read Marx, read Bakunin (I highly recommend Bakunin) and if you want to know how not to be a great human being read Lenin (otherwise I wouldn't recommend it.) Then read Friedman, von Hayek although never Rothbard (moron) and only read Ayn Rand if you like novels. Get real understanding and real definitions, and until then stop talking because you sound like fools.


" If you spent 8 years of elementary school, then 6 years of high school and go study medicine for 6-7 years and end up earning just as much as a lorrydriver. What's the point?"

Let us pray you never become a doctor! I know people studying medicine. They don't do it for the money. They do it because they want to. If you're only going for your career to make money that is your problem but the majority of people don't, you'd be surprised. It's annoying that people have to project their own life's inadequacies onto the rest of the human race. Also have you ever wondered where the persuit of money comes from? In a world without need, surplus value (check it out people, it might just blow your little socks off) etc it wouldn't work like that at all. The abolition of the monetary system is a facet of certain brances of communism. Marx talked about capitalism supressing human being's capacity to realise their creative potential. Capitalism turns people into worker drones, working for substinence and having the rest of the fruits of their labour siphoned off as company profit. The 'equal pay' (to put it crudely) argument is one of the weakest arguments against communism. The people I know who are extremely intelligent and also desperately hate communism NEVER use this argument. They would be ashamed of themselves and so would I. They understand capitalism and communism and know criticising communism in terms of 'doctors earning the same as binmen' holds as much intellectual weight a plastic bag in gale force winds. It's what people say when they're fourteen and suddenly think they've demolished Marx's entire life's work in one fell swoop.

"As far as I'm concerned people who can't argue their voting choice properly shouldn't be allowed to vote, getting rid of 'the sheep effect.'"
Also congratulations on sounding like a complete fascist.

[Caael]

Legolastom, on Dec 19 2008, 05:19 PM, said:

Hello chaps.

I hate to break it to everyone, but I have not read a single intelligent thing in this entire thread. No one here knows anything about either capitalism or communism. As a vetern myself of everyone from Marx to von Hayek I'm sorely unimpressed.

For one, the typical teenage boy ramblings about 'happy mediums' and 'I think there needs to be a balance really' are utterly redundant and contribute nothing to the world or this topic.
Secondly, and the most sad and brainwashed of all is the way people even bother to talk about the Soviet Union. Someone on the first page described it as pure communism! HAHAHA. Here is a lesson for you all, the USSR was Mixed Economy State Socialism. Remember that little phrase. What I'm saying is the USSR was a warped form of capitalism with socialist perfume on.
Thirdly Communism does not depend on 'human goodwill.' What a silly thing to say. It is an economic system and to even talk about human goodwill is crass and unsophisitcated to a considerable degree. It's like people who say 'Communism will never work because of human nature!' I guess if you tell people something enough times they start to believe it. Who needs a basic understanding of politics and philosophy? Canned intellect straight from Faux News. If you think communism will never work you probably don't know much about capitalism, let alone communism. I've read these posts a million times before on a million different, mainly American, message boards. The generic catchphrases you guys use to describe these systems frighten me, that they are so deeply ingrained into the psyche of generation after generation.

It's pathetic that the real definitions of communism are available in short setences but people still propogate political ignorance. I'm not advocating any system here, but I'm really annoyed at how people still talk. Read Marx, read Bakunin (I highly recommend Bakunin) and if you want to know how not to be a great human being read Lenin (otherwise I wouldn't recommend it.) Then read Friedman, von Hayek although never Rothbard (moron) and only read Ayn Rand if you like novels. Get real understanding and real definitions, and until then stop talking because you sound like fools.
" If you spent 8 years of elementary school, then 6 years of high school and go study medicine for 6-7 years and end up earning just as much as a lorrydriver. What's the point?"

Let us pray you never become a doctor! I know people studying medicine. They don't do it for the money. They do it because they want to. If you're only going for your career to make money that is your problem but the majority of people don't, you'd be surprised. It's annoying that people have to project their own life's inadequacies onto the rest of the human race. Also have you ever wondered where the persuit of money comes from? In a world without need, surplus value (check it out people, it might just blow your little socks off) etc it wouldn't work like that at all. The abolition of the monetary system is a facet of certain brances of communism. Marx talked about capitalism supressing human being's capacity to realise their creative potential. Capitalism turns people into worker drones, working for substinence and having the rest of the fruits of their labour siphoned off as company profit. The 'equal pay' (to put it crudely) argument is one of the weakest arguments against communism. The people I know who are extremely intelligent and also desperately hate communism NEVER use this argument. They would be ashamed of themselves and so would I. They understand capitalism and communism and know criticising communism in terms of 'doctors earning the same as binmen' holds as much intellectual weight a plastic bag in gale force winds. It's what people say when they're fourteen and suddenly think they've demolished Marx's entire life's work in one fell swoop.

"As far as I'm concerned people who can't argue their voting choice properly shouldn't be allowed to vote, getting rid of 'the sheep effect.'"
Also congratulations on sounding like a complete fascist.

Well done for writing a whole paragraph and not explaining how to combat the "binmen vs doctors" arguement

It's something i've been contemplating for a while; how to combat the arguement, so please Tom, go ahead and explain and prove this whole thing wasn't just copypasta

Tom, as much as I admire your efforts, you've basically just written an essay about how capitalism is bad and not really explained your claims.

Saying lots of long words and insulting us really doesn't make you look more intelligent, so stop it please.

[Legolastom]

I'm not Tom I'm his sister. Also what do you mean copy paste? Where would I copy that from? Weaknesses. I didn't really think it needed explaining but for those who need it:

Basically it's a fallacy to assume that it's a problem. You think it is a problem because you're imagining a capitalist society implementing level wages in every kind of work. If you'd remembered you're talking about a completely different society with a completely different system (called communism) you'd realise the argument doesn't apply. Capitalism tends to involve competition, for example, which creates the desire for higher wages. Capitalism promotes buying- the entire system is founded on production, that is where wealth creation actually lies. Anyone who believes money is created in the financial sector doesn't understand grade 1 economics. If people aren't encouraged to make more money to buy more then the system collapses. Hence why during this recession we're being encouraged to buy buy buy. Also hence why you believe level wages pose any kind of a problem. Remove capitalism (you were talking about communism remember) and you remove the need. In fact, by and large the idea is you remove need. This isn't about limiting choice for all the right-wing libertarians out there but that is a different and lengthly argument. People work where they desire doing things they desire. I thought that was pretty simple. Your idea also, may I add, is assuming the communist society you were thinking of (even though you were actually thinking about capitalism) even deals in wages and money.
In response to your edit, I don't remember using lots of long words but if you say so.

Also I didn't write an essay about why capitalism is bad. I mainly wrote a post about why not understanding what Communism actually is is bad. Then at the bottom I said why the aquisition of surplus value is a bad part of capitalism.

[Caael]

Legolastom, on Dec 19 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

I'm not Tom I'm his sister. Also what do you mean copy paste? Where would I copy that from? Weaknesses. I didn't really think it needed explaining but for those who need it:

Basically it's a fallacy to assume that it's a problem. You think it is a problem because you're imagining a capitalist society implementing level wages in every kind of work. If you'd remembered you're talking about a completely different society with a completely different system (called communism) you'd realise the argument doesn't apply. Capitalism tends to involve competition, for example, which creates the desire for higher wages. Capitalism promotes buying- the entire system is founded on production, that is where wealth creation actually lies. Anyone who believes money is created in the financial sector doesn't understand grade 1 economics. If people aren't encouraged to make more money to buy more then the system collapses. Hence why during this recession we're being encouraged to buy buy buy. Also hence why you believe level wages pose any kind of a problem. Remove capitalism (you were talking about communism remember) and you remove the need. In fact, by and large the idea is you remove need. This isn't about limiting choice for all the right-wing libertarians out there but that is a different and lengthly argument. People work where they desire doing things they desire. I thought that was pretty simple. Your idea also, may I add, is assuming the communist society you were thinking of (even though you were actually thinking about capitalism) even deals in wages and money.

In response to your edit, I don't remember using lots of long words but if you say so.

The fact that you're Toms sister makes me respect you a lot more :fcp:

I understand what you're saying, but this is why I dont think Communism can work. Mock me for this all you want, but because today's society has become so materialistic and needy for more money and possessions, the shock of communism and focusing away from making money, people dont like the idea of having less money. I'll go into more detail later though.

[Legolastom]

You don't really need to go into detail on that. I understand what you mean. If I'm honest I gave up on a lot of politics a long time ago. Lots of people in the left-wing "movement" (I'd say it's closer to a bowel movement than a political one) are dreadful. I was berated for saying I didn't think the revolution would happen anytime soon (what I actually meant was talk of the revolution is embarassingly cheesey and I can't envisage it actually happening until say the Second Coming.) I am however dedicatedly pedantic on the definitions of Communism which is why I got so angry in the first place. It just drives me absolutely nuts seeing it described incorrectly. I'm like this with anything and as someone who has spent years and years studying it I get funny.

Also just to defend my 'involvement' in left-wing politics, I got involved because of what I hope was a positive thing. All I found were middle class faux-Marxists and snobs. I got into a huge fight with the entire student wing of the SWP for daring to insult George "I'd rather Robert Mugabe as Prime Minister" Galloway. They called me right-wing even though I was more of a Marxist than they were. If you want to see sheep politics go talk to lots of left-wingers. They're worse than working class Tories.

[Caael]

This is why I want to study social and political sciences. Not because I necessarily want to spark a revolution, but because it's just an interesting topic. Right now I've barely scratched the surface of Communism and Socialism, which is why I want to learn more about it.

[Eugine]

Legolastom, on Dec 19 2008, 12:19 PM, said:

Hello chaps.

Nonsense

Your post proves book sense is not common sense.
Your post proves why teachers do not grade based on the number of lines written.

I'm sorry, but rather than explaining why you know more than someone else on this topic by writing so many paragraphs, how about explaining why you think communism is better than capitalism with a few paragraphs.
Thanks Tom sister!

[Legolastom]

I never bought into the revolutionary stuff. It's mainly self-indulgent fantacism. It's interesting to study, although I suggest starting off yourself or you only learn tiny fractions of anything. That's what it's like with most things in classrooms. I'd really recommend good overview guides of people like Marx, once you understand Marx you're basically set for anything in Communism or Socialism. Marx also slices through lots of the bull**** surrounding it too, so you'll be able to discern yourself what constitutes credible socialist or communist theory. I became a Marxist reading Marx, but lots of people don't. I however know of no one who ever regretted it, simply from the understanding of politics and economics you get.



Also Eugine, I'm sure you know tons about nonsense. :fcp: By the way, instead of going into SUPER DEFENSIVE CAPITALIST MODE refer back to some other stuff I wrote and you'll realise after further inspection my post was mainly about the complete misunderstanding of what communism is and often capitalism is. I don't care about communism being better than capitalism (which you do, hence why you're bringing it up.)
"Your post proves why teachers do not grade based on the number of lines written."
Lol 3 A Grade A-levels gutted.

Anyway I'm bare bored and am going to play Zoo Tycoon for the rest of my life. Take care Caael and good luck with your ambitions. :fcp:

[Eugine]

I read all your posts... It is filled with "I know more than you because I read a lot."
"Oh, did I tell you I know this theory?!"
You seem like a huge smart aleck honestly.

And sure, both of us know tons of nonsense.

[Caael]

Legolastom, on Dec 19 2008, 07:24 PM, said:

I never bought into the revolutionary stuff. It's mainly self-indulgent fantacism. It's interesting to study, although I suggest starting off yourself or you only learn tiny fractions of anything. That's what it's like with most things in classrooms. I'd really recommend good overview guides of people like Marx, once you understand Marx you're basically set for anything in Communism or Socialism. Marx also slices through lots of the bull**** surrounding it too, so you'll be able to discern yourself what constitutes credible socialist or communist theory. I became a Marxist reading Marx, but lots of people don't. I however know of no one who ever regretted it, simply from the understanding of politics and economics you get.
Also Eugine, I'm sure you know tons about nonsense. :) By the way, instead of going into SUPER DEFENSIVE CAPITALIST MODE refer back to some other stuff I wrote and you'll realise after further inspection my post was mainly about the complete misunderstanding of what communism is and often capitalism is. I don't care about communism being better than capitalism (which you do, hence why you're bringing it up.)
"Your post proves why teachers do not grade based on the number of lines written."
Lol 3 A Grade A-levels gutted.

Anyway I'm bare bored and am going to play Zoo Tycoon for the rest of my life. Take care Caael and good luck with your ambitions. :)

Thanks Toms sis (Ella I think your name is), I will hopefully become a prominent figure in modern communism later in life, but for now, internet debates is what I'm destined for :P

[Toasty]

Legolastom, on Dec 19 2008, 08:19 AM, said:

Hello chaps.

I hate to break it to everyone, but I have not read a single intelligent thing in this entire thread. No one here knows anything about either capitalism or communism. As a vetern myself of everyone from Marx to von Hayek I'm sorely unimpressed.

For one, the typical teenage boy ramblings about 'happy mediums' and 'I think there needs to be a balance really' are utterly redundant and contribute nothing to the world or this topic.
Secondly, and the most sad and brainwashed of all is the way people even bother to talk about the Soviet Union. Someone on the first page described it as pure communism! HAHAHA. Here is a lesson for you all, the USSR was Mixed Economy State Socialism. Remember that little phrase. What I'm saying is the USSR was a warped form of capitalism with socialist perfume on.
Thirdly Communism does not depend on 'human goodwill.' What a silly thing to say. It is an economic system and to even talk about human goodwill is crass and unsophisitcated to a considerable degree. It's like people who say 'Communism will never work because of human nature!' I guess if you tell people something enough times they start to believe it. Who needs a basic understanding of politics and philosophy? Canned intellect straight from Faux News. If you think communism will never work you probably don't know much about capitalism, let alone communism. I've read these posts a million times before on a million different, mainly American, message boards. The generic catchphrases you guys use to describe these systems frighten me, that they are so deeply ingrained into the psyche of generation after generation.

It's pathetic that the real definitions of communism are available in short setences but people still propogate political ignorance. I'm not advocating any system here, but I'm really annoyed at how people still talk. Read Marx, read Bakunin (I highly recommend Bakunin) and if you want to know how not to be a great human being read Lenin (otherwise I wouldn't recommend it.) Then read Friedman, von Hayek although never Rothbard (moron) and only read Ayn Rand if you like novels. Get real understanding and real definitions, and until then stop talking because you sound like fools.


" If you spent 8 years of elementary school, then 6 years of high school and go study medicine for 6-7 years and end up earning just as much as a lorrydriver. What's the point?"

Let us pray you never become a doctor! I know people studying medicine. They don't do it for the money. They do it because they want to. If you're only going for your career to make money that is your problem but the majority of people don't, you'd be surprised. It's annoying that people have to project their own life's inadequacies onto the rest of the human race. Also have you ever wondered where the persuit of money comes from? In a world without need, surplus value (check it out people, it might just blow your little socks off) etc it wouldn't work like that at all. The abolition of the monetary system is a facet of certain brances of communism. Marx talked about capitalism supressing human being's capacity to realise their creative potential. Capitalism turns people into worker drones, working for substinence and having the rest of the fruits of their labour siphoned off as company profit. The 'equal pay' (to put it crudely) argument is one of the weakest arguments against communism. The people I know who are extremely intelligent and also desperately hate communism NEVER use this argument. They would be ashamed of themselves and so would I. They understand capitalism and communism and know criticising communism in terms of 'doctors earning the same as binmen' holds as much intellectual weight a plastic bag in gale force winds. It's what people say when they're fourteen and suddenly think they've demolished Marx's entire life's work in one fell swoop.

"As far as I'm concerned people who can't argue their voting choice properly shouldn't be allowed to vote, getting rid of 'the sheep effect.'"
Also congratulations on sounding like a complete fascist.

Congradulations. You wrote an entire post about how none of us know how communism works, and you didn't even givea definition of it.

Let alone give a half decent outline of how it works.


In communism, everyone is equal, correct? That means equal assets, equal possessions, etc. In communism, the idea is to keep everyone equal. I.E. a "classless society," which means there is no ability for someone to work harder, and obtain more money/a better lifestyle/etc.

The pros are a similar lifestyle for everyone, less general greed/envy among the citizens, and maybe even a more stable government in general.

The cons consist mainly of a complete lack of any motivation to work harder. When people work harder, it benefits the economy of the country. If there is no incentive to work harder than you currently are, then the state of the economy won't increase.

Also, since the lifestyle of everyone in a communistic society is essentially the same, the lifestyle of every person in the society is dependent entirely on the country's resources


Conversely, as we all know, in a capitalistic society there are classes. The more money you have, the higher up on the food chain you are. Most of the time, the harder you work the more money you get. Therefore, there is an incentive to work harder, and since that incentive is there, people will likely work harder, and in turn, boost the economy.

The pros consist mostly of the promotion of a better work ethic, and greater freedom than most other forms of government.

The cons consist of a larger population of poor people (though I'll also state that even the US's poor population live better lives than a lot of other countries do), and the promotion of greed and envy.

Also, in a capitalistic society, it's possible live the same lifestyle no matter how much resources the country has (to an extent of course).




I'l also state again that there are not enough resources on the planet to provide an ideal lifestyle for every single person at the same time. It simply isn't possible. At least in a capitalistic society, it's possible to cycle people through the upper and lower classes to get a taste of a better life. Not that it happens very often, but it is possible.

[Caael]

I missed the part where toasty said something.

[TheEnglishman]

Legolastom, on Dec 19 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

I hate to break it to everyone, but I have not read a single intelligent thing in this entire thread. No one here knows anything about either capitalism or communism. As a vetern myself of everyone from Marx to von Hayek I'm sorely unimpressed.

What do you expect? This a forum about a videogame from years ago. You'll probably get the same response out of us as you would if you asked for Stephen Hawkings opinion on gangsta rap.

[Caael]

Sorry for long bump

I was just thinking to myself earlier how a total Communist-Anarchist state would work. Just the complete abolition of money and so everybody works for free, and can have anything they want for free. It's an interesting concept; obviously one that would never, EVER work but interesting nonetheless. Just thought I'd bring that up.

Quote

Conversely, as we all know, in a capitalistic society there are classes. The more money you have, the higher up on the food chain you are. Most of the time, the harder you work the more money you get. Therefore, there is an incentive to work harder, and since that incentive is there, people will likely work harder, and in turn, boost the economy.

Bollocks. While it sounds good on paper, thats not how it works. Inheritance just destroys the capitalist theology; just look at people like Paris Hilton. They did **** all to deserve their position, and they're only there simply because they were born into that position. What does that tell you about how flawed Capitalism is? The fact that these people are born into a position where they have all the money they need is just wrong.

And the "Most of the time, the harder you work the more money you get" comment. Are you mad? Usually it's the harder you work, the less you're paid. You obviously have no idea about how industry works. It ties in with the class system very nicely. Primary industry is the harvesting and collection of raw materials. Secondary industry is the processing of these materials and making something useful out of them. Tertiary industry is goods and services; utilising these products and materials. And quartenary industry which is research; how to improve the previous three industries. It almost works in reverse; primary industries get paid the least yet they work the hardest. They're the lower classes and yet they're the backbone of society. Without the primary industries and working class, everything comes to a standstill as everything ceases to be made. And you're saying these hard-working people, who do I think it's 40% of total workload out of all industries, deserve to be paid less because they do less work?

Get a clue, Toasty.

[Caael]

Bump

[Caael]

Bump

[Toasty]

Caael, on Feb 9 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

Sorry for long bump

I was just thinking to myself earlier how a total Communist-Anarchist state would work. Just the complete abolition of money and so everybody works for free, and can have anything they want for free. It's an interesting concept; obviously one that would never, EVER work but interesting nonetheless. Just thought I'd bring that up.
Bollocks. While it sounds good on paper, thats not how it works. Inheritance just destroys the capitalist theology; just look at people like Paris Hilton. They did **** all to deserve their position, and they're only there simply because they were born into that position. What does that tell you about how flawed Capitalism is? The fact that these people are born into a position where they have all the money they need is just wrong.

And the "Most of the time, the harder you work the more money you get" comment. Are you mad? Usually it's the harder you work, the less you're paid. You obviously have no idea about how industry works. It ties in with the class system very nicely. Primary industry is the harvesting and collection of raw materials. Secondary industry is the processing of these materials and making something useful out of them. Tertiary industry is goods and services; utilising these products and materials. And quartenary industry which is research; how to improve the previous three industries. It almost works in reverse; primary industries get paid the least yet they work the hardest. They're the lower classes and yet they're the backbone of society. Without the primary industries and working class, everything comes to a standstill as everything ceases to be made. And you're saying these hard-working people, who do I think it's 40% of total workload out of all industries, deserve to be paid less because they do less work?

Get a clue, Toasty.

I think it takes more effort to get a 4 year degree than it does to drop out of college. The people at the top didn't get there by sitting on their asses, and I certainly don't think the people on the bottom deserve to be paid more if they didn't graduate from college. Doesn't matter how hard they work.

If we were to go with a communistic society, and completely disregard people's schooling, our country would become even dumber than it already is, and there won't be anyone qualified to be in those tertiary and quartenary positions. If no one's qualified to fill those positions, we're left with a bunch of unusable or out of date goods/equipment.


It's not all black and white.

[Caael]

But in that case you just up the standard.

[Toasty]

Good luck with that.

[Caael]

Let me elaborate.

I was thinking something that's not pure Communism. Because people will have a hard time adjusting to Communism due to the Capitalist system that's been in place for far too long, money has become a commodity and a primary goal in life; used to measure somebodies value as a person which I believe is wrong, but because of this, I've come up with a substitute where nobody loses out.

Everybody gets paid the most basic amount of money to keep them alive which just about covers the costs of living. Everything else is commissional. The government pays everybody to do nothing, but that just about means they can live. Then any extra work you do, regardless of job, gets you money bonuses. Say if you're a binman who works hard and covers say 200 houses in a day, he'll be getting more money than say the leader of a corporation who just sits around all day doing nothing. This means that the society truly is "each according to his abilities", and it also brings "natural selection" back into the cycle. Because of better healthcare, benefits and the government being far too lenient, people live a lot longer than they usually would. This eliminates that; no benefits at all; if some druggy spends all the money provided to him by the government on crack, he's not going to be given any more and he will die. This process keeps upping the standard until you have some elite society. Of course, there'd be some slight system of benefits, so if a woman has a kid, the money provided by the government will be upped slightly to cover the cost of keeping the child alive, though in this case the child has priority or something to that extent so that the mother doesn't spend it all on something useless.

This is all just a basic idea at the moment, though it combines both aspects of a communist and capitalist society to make it more manageable. It still has a class system, but instead of being biased and unfair towards the lower class who do more work than the upper class people, it gives everybody an equal opportunity to be as good as they can.

[Caael]

So "o all knowing one" Toasty, why wont Communism work? Hmm?

[Toasty]

Because there is, and always will be people who want to out-do their neighbor. People who want to live a better life than those around them.

Heck, people who want to get to the top and will step on everyone if that's what it takes.

Communism creates a classless society where everyone is equal. Some people are fine with that, some people aren't. But there will always be people who aren't, and so there will never be a stable communistic society without a dictatorship keeping it together.

And obviously, if there's a dictatorship, then it's gonna get an army shoved up it's ass just like Saddam and Hitler did.

Unless the UN actually gets up off it's ass to do something, in which case it'll probably side with the dictatorship. But this is about communism.

[Caael]

But if those people are forced into a Communist society? What can they do about it? If they dont like it, they can go off to some capitalist country where their "skills" will be "recognised". True Communism is libertarian, so if somebody is unhappy with the way things are, they're not going to be stopped from just walking out.

Fundamentally, Capitalism isn't too bad but things like inheritance completely **** it up (Paris Hilton). Plus, the working class work harder than any other industries so is it fair they're on the bottom? Read my bit on "Commisionism" at the top of the page.

Dont even bring up dictatorships around Communism. Calling Stalin and Castro Communist is a joke. Communism's roots lie in libertarianism; ie. nobody holds all the power and everybody is equal. Stalin, Castro and pretty much every "communist" leader there has been was never truly communist, because they held all the power and supressed and controlled all those beneath them, which isn't very equal at all. A "true" Communist state has not yet been achieved, but that's not to say it cant happen. If you truly believe that because something hasn't happened so it cant happen, you're severely lacking intelligence (not aimed at you Toasty, just in general).

[Toasty]

But you see, people are rarely prevented by the government from leaving their country in these situations. It's other factors, like the lack of available funds to move, geological location, etc.

The problem with commisionism though, is that there are plenty of people who would be more than happy to live off of that anemic amount of money. Homeless people, lazy people, etc., all would be more than happy to receive a free income. They wouldn't have any reason to work because hey, at least they've got enough to live off of. That's more than they had before. And on top of it all, it's taken care of by the government, so they don't even have to do anything.

Not to mention that as new people are voted into the government in elections, some of them will either want to raise or lower that initial income. That means that either the society becomes borderline capitalist, or people will be given less of a reason to work.


It's the same problem that happened to the USSR, only slightly different. You see, people got payed no matter what they did. They could be a brain surgeon or a paper boy. They all got payed the same. Because of that, there was an extreme unbalance of empty and overloaded niches, and the society collapsed.

what we have with commisionism here, though, isn't really all that different.

You see, the only difference is now people are getting payed even if they do nothing. However, they can at least still increase their pay by working harder. But the thought of always being payed no matter what will linger in the backs of the minds of the citizens. Some will decide that the initial income is good enough, and they'll leech off the land. Only the hardworking people will actually be supporting the government, and that won;t be enough.


In a capitalistic society though, you have to work to get anywhere (unless you get an inheritance). If you don't work, you don't eat.



Therefor, communism is corrupted by laziness, and capitalism is corrupted by inheritance.

[Caael]

This money they're paid to stay alive is the VERY bare minimum though...only just affording food and clothes; borderline poverty. That's more than enough motivation to get somebody working i'd think. It's not like it pays for their house, their bills and all their food, the paltry amount the government would give them would just be enough to cover the extreme bare minimums of keeping them alive. Would you really enjoy an existence where you're just barely living?

Though another flaw in this is that no matter what work somebody does, if they do enough of it they'll get paid more than somebody else. Personally, I dont see a problem with that but some people might think that they can just be a binman and do really well and get paid loads, instead of actually having aspirations and becoming somebody to the best of their ability. Although, this is a blessing in disguise as this would mean only the best of the best would have the higher up jobs that they worked hard towards.

Commisionism is something I formulated to try and satisfy both fields. But the main problem in all systems is that money is still a driving force; people strive for money and not much else. This means that instead of aspiring to do something great like cure cancer, they'll just try and get as much money as possible. This is a sad mentality IMO for somebody to live on, because the majority of people never reache their full potential or ever truly aspire to do something great. Communism is designed to combat this, but because of previous systems where money was the driving force, the people weren't used to being all the same meaning they'd slack. This is where all systems will fall and which I believe is extremely difficult to change. Whether it's Capitalism or Communism, there's very little motivation to become somebody great. In Communism, you dont have to do anything to stay alive and in Capitalism you have to do extremely little to stay alive, but in Capitalism, a persons primary goal would be to make as much money as possible, where as in Communism, a primary goal SHOULD be to do or be somebody great, but in reality, they dont take this oppertunity and just use the money they're given for doing nothing to do nothing with. I've questioned it a lot in my head and the whole subject is hard to grasp and I dont think I've explained it very well. In short, there's no motivation to become somebody great; only to make more money. This is the problem where a system needs to be implanted to make people become great, instead of just manipulating money to earn heaps. This system, as far as I'm aware though, does not exist as of present.

As for the sitting around doing nothing, that could always be enforced by deportation. If you dont contribute to society in any way, go **** off and work somewhere else. Simple. I think that's motivation enough.

[Toasty]

Even if it's the very bare minimum to be able to live, that's still more than what a lot of (real) homeless people get (I'm not going to include the fake one's who make 40k a year off of begging for money).

As for the deportation thing, it'd work, but it would be too easy to abuse.

And therein lies the other major flaws that can arise in any form of government. The more control there is, the easier it is to abuse it. Therefore, smaller government = better government. However, as we all know, an Anarchy would almost never work. Therefore, a government has to have some kind of control over the country.

Basically, you need a balance.


[EDIT] I also explained your commisionism idea to my mom when I went to get something to eat a moment ago. She said it was a form of socialism, though she hadn't ever heard of the "work harder, get more" kind of idea thrown in with it. I'm inclined to believe her however, as she's going back to college (online classes) to get a degree in political science.

[Legolastom]

In true communism there would be NO money.

[Ironsight]

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/330/32904529151854a1326f.jpg
COMMUNISM IS A SETBACK ON THE ROAD TO FREEDOM.

[Toasty]

^ **** YEAH! GIANT ROBOTS!

Legolastom, on Mar 15 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

In true communism there would be NO money.

True communism would also require that everyone in said country and government be hard-working, selfless individuals.

[TheEnglishman]

http://www.goldensun-syndicate.net/forum/public/style_images/gssv3/snapback.png' alt='View Post' />Miley Cyrus, on Mar 16 2009, 01:50 AM, said:

COMMUNISM IS A SETBACK ON THE ROAD TO FREEDOM.

Liberty Prime, the silliest moment in Fallout 3.

[Caael]

http://www.goldensun-syndicate.net/forum/public/style_images/gssv3/snapback.png' alt='View Post' />Miley Cyrus, on Mar 16 2009, 01:50 AM, said:

COMMUNISM IS A SETBACK ON THE ROAD TO FREEDOM.

I lol'd at the irony

[TheEnglishman]

Out of complete curiosity, let me just ask something. Assuming the system you've described was magically set up overnight Caael, would you be happy to live there?

[Caael]

Of course, why wouldn't I?

[TheEnglishman]

Well I just thought it might be kind of a difficult change from the position you're in now to the one you would find yourself in.

[Caael]

Not really.

[TheEnglishman]

Does that mean you already live in 'borderline poverty' then?

[Caael]

Not really, I'd happily give up luxuries.

[Ironsight]

Dhohohoho?

[Caael]

And you do?

I doubt there would be much giving up privileges, it's not like the state would take everything away.

It's not like as soon as Communism strikes, everybody goes into poverty you ****wit.

[Ironsight]

So you can honestly say that you'd be perfectly alright with giving up your Xbox, PC, warm house, four meals a day, ect. so you could live like the starving man in Africa?

EDIT: Oh dear, I think we're both responding to edited posts.

[Caael]

LOLOLOLOL

[Ironsight]

Alright, I'll try again.

Caael, on Mar 16 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

And you do?

I doubt there would be much giving up privileges, it's not like the state would take everything away.

It's not like as soon as Communism strikes, everybody goes into poverty you ****wit.

Caael, on Feb 28 2009, 03:58 AM, said:

Everybody gets paid the most basic amount of money to keep them alive which just about covers the costs of living.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Caael]

That's commisionism, which is something I formulated in about 5 minutes. Not Communism.

[Ironsight]

Alright, I clearly have no idea what I'm doing. I'll just go back to watching you and Toasty argue with each other again.
*bows out*

[Caael]

It's probably best that way.

[Legolastom]

Also according to Tim that guy would not have a job anyway.

[Golden Legacy]

I do not see why ensuring the absolute minimal, bare essentials to life constitutes immediate 'communism'. Offering a means of shelter and education does not mean 'giving up luxuries'. In fact, many countries that do have higher standards of living overall.

[Toasty]

They also have a far smaller population, and a far better product import to export ratio.

Miley Cyrus, on Mar 16 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

Alright, I'll try again.

Caael, on Mar 16 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

And you do?

I doubt there would be much giving up privileges, it's not like the state would take everything away.

It's not like as soon as Communism strikes, everybody goes into poverty you ****wit.

Quote

Everybody gets paid the most basic amount of money to keep them alive which just about covers the costs of living.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

DS, you aren't entirely wrong there, as the government would infact have to take away people's posession and redistribute them, but that's if it was completely changing from a heavily capitalistic society. And even then, the government wouldn't necessarily have to take everything from everyone. Just stuff from the people above the mean paygrade.

And that's only if it was changing from one extreme form of government to another, and if they didn't take the work efforts into account. And also keep in mind that he was talking about commisionism or whatever.


However Caael, a commisionist, communist, or socialist government would (practicaly by definition) require a redistribution of wealth/possessions.





And a man who does not work, should not be fed. If someone is capable of working, then he should have to work to make a living. The government shouldn't just hand out money to people [who are capable of working], even if it's a bare minimum for survival.

We already have a welfare system, and it''s boundaries have already been stretched to include overweight people (who are perfectly capable of getting jobs, mind you), and other people who are perfectly capable of getting jobs. So in that sense, America already implements some form of "commisionism".

[Caael]

As I said, deportation solves that. Or just give them a compromise "work or we cut off your money and then you're ****ed". Some people might not be working but genuinely looking for jobs, but cant find any and in that case it's fine but the difference between people not doing anything and the people looking for a job I would assume would be quite clear.

And as for the redistriubution of wealth, most people wouldn't be happy with that I'd imagine so a gradual change into Communism would be better than just an overnight revolution. I'll expand on that more later.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Mar 17 2009, 02:25 AM, said:

They also have a far smaller population, and a far better product import to export ratio.

You mean net exports, the difference between the amount a nation exports and imports (a nation always wants to export more). And population size is perfectly manageable if the nation has the wealth and the funds to sustain them, which is certainly true of the US.

[Toasty]

Last I checked the US was way the **** in debt. Even at our most profitable point in time, the US would still have to borrow money to be able to provide a good standard of living for every single American. There's just too many people here.

And Caael, few governments have ever had good "eye sight". I know that the US government would have trouble discerning the freeloaders from the job-seekers. In that case, you're either stuck with freeloaders, or your kicking out/punishing innocent citizens.

For something like that to work and be perfectly fair, the government would have to have 20/10 vision.

[Golden Legacy]

Yes, if the US didn't have military expenditures greater than the next 15 nations combined, it could actually resolve some of its debt. China and India both have greater populations, and Japan is fairly populous itself, and neither have anywhere near the degree of debt per person that the US has. Yet, the US has the greatest purchasing power and by all accounts the highest GDP in the world (not counting the EU or the Eurozone).

Likewise, most modernized nations do have socialized institutions in place and still manage fairly well economically and socially, so it is very much possible. Each institution can be approached individually.

[Toasty]

The problem is keeping them from getting out of hand.

The programs themselves can either be manipulated by the government, or the populous.

Welfare was designed so that people who were out of a job or were incapable of working could stay afloat until such a time when they could get a job, or get back to work. However, the way the system is set up, many people in it find it incredibly hard to get out of. So they're stuck on welfare. This is a prime example of a socialist program being manipulated by the government.

Had welfare worked the way it was supposed to however, and had it been easy to get off of, there would still be people manipulating it in such a way that they could stay on welfare and not have to work.

On one hand, people who want to get out and get a better income can't. On the other, the government is stuck paying for people who have no intention of working whatsoever (though they seem to be fine with that anyway).


If you're going to start up a program where the government is basically taking care of/handing things out to the citizens, it has to be set up in such a way that it benefits both parties equally and cannot be tampered with. It also should not set up a timebomb of repercussions (i.e. it shouldn't allow people to get paid for being lazy, as at some point, too many people will take advantage of that and the society will collapse from a lack of available workers).

If you don't put safeguards in place, you're effectively relying on the goodwill of the government and citizens, and that is a very unwise thing to do.


However, putting the proper safeguards in place is in itself a very hard thing to do.

[Golden Legacy]

We've heard this argument circulated from you countless times. Why don't you clarify on this point:

Quote

However, the way the system is set up, many people in it find it incredibly hard to get out of. So they're stuck on welfare.

How would the "way the system is set up" make it "incredibly hard" to get out of? If you're referring to a person's decision to stay on welfare, that is your interpretation of what might happen.

It is a well-acknowledged social phenomenon that people who do fall into abject poverty remain there because of stratification of classes. While it is usually thought of that it is possible to 'escape' a social class into a higher one, that does not happen in reality with most people remaining in relatively the same level they were born into. That said, there are certain bottlenecks such as healthcare and education that would help flesh out that same potential to contribute back to society.

[Toasty]

GL, you can't get welfare money if you are working, or if you're going to school. What makes it hard to get out of, is the fact that you have to work to get out of it. But that welfare safety net is pulled out from under you before you're ready.

If you want to go back to school so you can get a better degree and a better job, no more healthcare. If you get a part-time job to help pay bills that welfare alone can't take care of, no more welfare.


As it stands, welfare is more of a lifestyle than a stepping stone. It's like a social class that you can't get out of. The Republicans were able to pressure Clinton into passing a law or two that made welfare more of a stepping stone (you'd actually be able to go to school while on welfare), but Obama just recently canceled those.

[Golden Legacy]

No... there are people who are working and/or going to school who need benefits because it doesn't provide enough. Note the millions filing for unemployment benefits as a result of the global crisis, people who have had jobs for years and even have graduate college degrees.

I do not know if you have taken a sociology class, but welfare benefits overwhelmingly go to women, children, and minorities. It is much the same reason that women still earn .70 of every 1 dollar a man makes, that a white male will have a far greater chance of being hired and less of a chance of being laid off than a minority, etc. There are inherent inequalities built into institutions, certainly not just along gender and racial lines but those are heavily pronounced.


And as for what you mentioned, yes, we are all aware that the only time a universal healthcare program was ever brought forward in the US was rallied into defeat by the mighty Republicans in '94.

[Toasty]

I think you misunderstood me GL. People who are in need of welfare cannot get it if they have a job, or are going to school. My point, is that they should if they are in need of it. However, as it stands, they don't.

[Golden Legacy]

I would be very surprised if that is how the system actually works. The need for welfare is determined by a person's status and whether he/she is able to put together a living for themselves. That includes people who are working but don't make enough, or people who are struggling to go to school. It is measured usually in absolute terms (i.e. certain income brackets).

There might be cases where specific programs require a person not to have a job, but by no means is that all services.

[Caael]

http://www.g-20meltdown.org/node/32

Going to this on wednesday. Gonna be awesome.

[Legolastom]

shutup noob

[Caael]

Or what? You gonna come down from North London, pick me out of the crowd and shank me?

[Legolastom]

Or I could find you in the public toilets, where you work.

[Toasty]

Caael, on Mar 30 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

http://www.g-20meltdown.org/node/32

Going to this on wednesday. Gonna be awesome.

LAWL. GLOBAL WARMING IS ALL CAPITALISM'S FAULT!!!11!1!


Though I do agree with one thing. There's no way in hell those guys should get bailed out.

[Caael]

Nah I'm marching with the silver horse (financial crimes)

[Saturos S.]

I'm just hating politicians who think giving money to the benefit of animals, 'green' energy etc. is more important than the financial crisis.

Stupid asshats.

[Legolastom]

It is.

[Saturos S.]

I'd rather give my money to rich people who don't need it than to charity.

Why? Because I can.






(and I'd rather be in favour with rich people than poor people.)

[Legolastom]

i would rather **** on your face than get a little dog pee on me

[Caael]

Lol the riots today were ****ing awesome. Was 10 feet from Russell Brand at one point, and was right at the front of the police cordon. Saw the RBS windows get smashed too, but was quite far away from that.

[Legolastom]

Lol cool watched what was happening like 3 times today, would be nice if it was more of a riot, but LMAO at "Eat the banker".

[Caael]

Hahaha! I could have carried the "Eat The Bankers" Dummy if I wanted but I pussied out. Wish I had now, at the London Bridge station they were hanging him from a girder using the rope around him.

[Legolastom]

Lol should have rushed the police more though.

[Toasty]

Legolastom, on Apr 1 2009, 09:44 AM, said:

It is.

Then you can go live in a cardboard box. It's "green", "animal friendly", and it'll be the only thing you can afford.

[Caael]

lololol communism doesn't make people poor toasty, we've been through this I'm sure

[Legolastom]

wont be so bad if everyone is living in a cardboard box

[Ironsight]

Aren't you mommy's little rebel.

[Caael]

...what?

[Toasty]

Caael, on Apr 2 2009, 04:54 AM, said:

lololol communism doesn't make people poor toasty, we've been through this I'm sure

It makes anyone who actually has money poor. Anybody who's already poor just gets a little more cash.


[EDIT] Lawl, just saw the London riot on the news. It was just a 10 second spot though. That was the one you were at, right Caael?

[Caael]

Yeah, outside RBS and the bank of England.

Sure, if Communism was to be put into effect tomorrow or something, then people would be poor but that's not how it works. It's not going to work for a very long time, because simply put, you cant force people into being perfect. A Marxist system requires perfect, selfless human beings to work and the world is full of the opposite right now. If you force non-perfect people into a Communist state then you get the USSR all over again; people dont like it and get unruly; more restrictions are put in place to control this until it gets to the point where everything is controlled in fear of a revolt. Communism has to be gradual otherwise it just wont work. China, North Korea, the USSR and Cuba are examples enough of why you shouldn't force people into a Communist state. Everybody in a country has to accept Communism before it can occur, or "mature" to it, as it were. Marx described it as the final stage in human evolution with a stateless, classless, moneyless society full of perfect, selfless human beings. From this alone it's evident Communism isn't going to happen for an extremely long time.

[Golden Legacy]

The G20 summit, great, another entertainment show for leaders and politicians to pretend like they give a ****.

[Toasty]

Caael, on Apr 2 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

Yeah, outside RBS and the bank of England.

Sure, if Communism was to be put into effect tomorrow or something, then people would be poor but that's not how it works. It's not going to work for a very long time, because simply put, you cant force people into being perfect. A Marxist system requires perfect, selfless human beings to work and the world is full of the opposite right now. If you force non-perfect people into a Communist state then you get the USSR all over again; people dont like it and get unruly; more restrictions are put in place to control this until it gets to the point where everything is controlled in fear of a revolt. Communism has to be gradual otherwise it just wont work. China, North Korea, the USSR and Cuba are examples enough of why you shouldn't force people into a Communist state. Everybody in a country has to accept Communism before it can occur, or "mature" to it, as it were. Marx described it as the final stage in human evolution with a stateless, classless, moneyless society full of perfect, selfless human beings. From this alone it's evident Communism isn't going to happen for an extremely long time.

But the whole point I've been pushing, is that there is, and never will be, enough selfless people in the world for communism to work.

Personally speaking, I could handle a communist society if everyone else was working as hard as I was (or harder). But that isn't going to happen. The world hasn't gotten any "better" in the last hundred years or so. In fact, it's actually gotten a lot worse. If everyone followed the first 5 commandments to a T, then things would be better, and communism could work. But people have strayed farther and farther away from morality.

[Caael]

I'm not gonna dispute that because I had a long debate with my friend about whether humanity can achieve perfection.

There could not be a better time for Communism right now, with the economic crisis and the world going down the pan, but it also could not be any further away with corruption and exploitation ripe.

I was bored a while back and wrote about Opportunists and why they're one of the biggest causes of Capitalism, why the majority of opportunists strive for personal profit, rather than collectively helping and the focus on individualism. I may post it up here at some point.

[Saturos S.]

Legolastom, on Apr 1 2009, 11:16 PM, said:

i would rather **** on your face than get a little dog pee on me

Go **** yourself.

Golden Legacy, on Apr 3 2009, 04:55 AM, said:

The G20 summit, great, another entertainment show for leaders and politicians to pretend like they give a ****.

The conclusion is the worst. Another 490 billion to stop the banks/insurance etc. from falling down. 270 billion for keeping global trade safe.

At least they prevented mass protectionism.

[Caael]

Quote

I studied Russia's history in my final year of school last year from I think 1914 to the end of the cold war. I believe that at least Lenin, if not Trotsky as well (although he started as a Menshevik) desired to build pure communism, but that was thwarted by Lenins ill health and Stalin's purge of the Right and Left. But communism in practice never succeeds, the lure of power is too corrupting, as Orwell stated in Animal Farm "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
I do think that Communism is the best form of government we have, but only in theory beause it has yet to succeed in the real world.
Why are you and Tom so into it as well.

Even if Lenin hadn't been shot and had a stroke, and if Trotsky hadn't been framed and banished, their ideals still wouldn't have worked. It's simple; pure Communism requires perfect, selfless human beings and the people of Russia, as well of the rest of the world, were far from it so even if they did emplace their ideas it would have turned out a lot like Stalin's USSR; controlling and brutal, albeit less paranoia purges on Stalins behalf.

Yes the lure of power is a problem, but I hope that humanity one day will be 'mature' enough to handle Communism. Perfect people dont feel the lure of power.

As it stands, i'm all for socialism but forcing Communism onto people never works as we have seen more than enough evidence of. You need to wait until people are ready for it, not for it to be thrust upon them. I like the philosophy behind Communism and the history, but I'm not explicitly 'pro' communist, because as i've stated, in this day and age it cannot work. I dont know why I'm so interested in it. My grandad was a professor of it and taught it back when he was a uni history professor and my whole family is relatively left wing. I think it's Tom who got me into it, without even meaning to.