A communisim parodox

Well, obviously, there are no anarchies on a national level, as the definition of a nation is a geographic area with a Government.

- Scarlet.

 

Right.

Human beings have developed laws throughout the centuries and governments as a means of survival, of course.

Anarchy does not work on any level of society.

If everyone could share things on an equitable basis without government or laws and without any problems, of course people would do that and would have done that long ago. The same goes for everyone getting compensated for equitable work done on an equitable basis across the board. However, human beings cannot do this, and societal norms change too much to be considered standards for maintaining a society. This is indeed evidenced by history, whether or not the USSR was a true communist state. The fact is that they attempted it, and just about everyone in that nation was poor - which, when accompanied by tyranny and lack of free expressions and pressure from the free world, brought down the communist system in Eastern Europe.

The paradox really is that on the one hand people yearn for equality across the board as it would be in a true communist society, but are unable to do it economically because of simple greed. Greed is the natural tendency in human beings which makes capitalism work, and the drive of the successful entrepeneur to make money guarantees the creation of jobs in the pursuits of selling his product/services.

People simply cannot rid themselves of competitive drives. So, capitalism works in a society that promotes free expression. There is incentive to compete as you will be trumped by the business down the street unless you come up with an alternative or you join the company to further its production and support yourself and your family at the same time. With competition comes more creativity. People perform their best under competitive circumstances, and capitalism provides the most competition for economic production.

 

Human beings have developed laws throughout the centuries and governments as a means of survival, of course.

Or as a means of wielding power over others.

If everyone could share things equally without government or laws and without any problems, of course people would do that and would have done that long ago.

They did, and still do. Did you see NONE of the examples of primitive Communism?

The same goes for everyone getting compensated for work done on an equitable basis across the board.

This is ridiculous. You have read nothing said. Communism is not equality of income.

The fact is that they attempted it, and just about everyone in that nation was poor - which, when accompanied by tyranny and lack of free expressions and pressure from the free world, brought down the communist system in Eastern Europe.

The fact was that it was never going to work there anyway. It wasn't right for Communism. Marx always said that Communism would have to occur in one of the industrialised nations first.

- Scarlet.

 

I've edited the above post concering equitable work for equitable pay.

As I stated above, people perform their best under competitive circumstances, and capitalism provides the most competition for economic production and technological improvement.

The fact was that it was never going to work there anyway.

Shouldn't it have worked? It didn't though, and the USSR was an industrialized nation during it's time on the world stage.

The fact is, only primitive cultures and very small scale groups can implement such a system. Large scale societies are far too complex for communism to work, not only for the lack of government authority over such large socieites but also the lack of ability to sustain their populations.

As far as laws are concerned, that is true that governments have used laws to exploit societies. That is why representative democracy has been shown to be the most effective form of government of large scale societies. When the people themselves have control over the government and the government answers to the people, there is much less chance of governmental abuse. Here in the US, it is a natural thing for our citizens to be highly critical of our government internally and to vote change when necessary. However, for the most part in a democratic republic, laws are passed for the protection and beneficience of the citizens that are governed with their consent.

 

As I stated above, people perform their best under competitive circumstances, and capitalism provides the most competition for economic production and technological improvement.

No, people perform best under cooperative circumstances.

An analogy:

You have six people, and object is to build a treehouse. What is more productive: for all six to try and build seperate tree-houses in competition with one another, or for them to get together and make one treehouse?

Shouldn't it have worked? It didn't though, and the USSR was an industrialized nation during it's time on the world stage.

No, it became industrialised following the Revolution. It would have worked better had it been industrialised in the first place.

The fact is,

I'm sick of hearing this phrase. This is a debate on a political theory. There are few 'facts.'

As far as laws are concerned, that is true that governments have used laws to exploit societies. That is why representative democracy has been shown to be the most effective form of government of large scale societies.

Poppycock. Dictatorships are the most effective form of Government, period. Of course, we can't do THAT.

- Scarlet.

 

You have six people, and object is to build a treehouse. What is more productive: for all six to try and build seperate tree-houses in competition with one another, or for them to get together and make one treehouse?

Yes, but if you have six teams of six people building treehouses for rent, you can bet that they will all try to outdo one another to attract the most profit. Hence, competition (in cooperative associations, yes) is a greater drive than cooperation. People will be much more motivated to build the treehouses if they stand to gain the most benefit rather than simply building it for the sake of just building it.

Dictatorships are the most effective form of government, period.

Using that rationale, the Soviet Union would have been much more effective than our government in the US, which it obviously was not. Iraq has an effective form of government? How about Pol Pot? Or North Korea? Or Castro's Cuba? The people of Cuba are suffering under his tyranny, and will benefit when he dies and the country becomes democratic.

There is no nation in history that has been as successful as this democratic republic in the US. Certainly no dictatorship.

Otherwise, why do people from all over the world emigrate and try to come here?

 

Yes, but if you have six teams of six people building treehouses for rent, you can bet that they will all try to outdo one another to attract the most profit. Hence, competition (in cooperative associations, yes) is a greater drive than cooperation. People will be much more motivated to build the treehouses if they stand to gain the most benefit rather than simply building it for the sake of just building it.

Of course, and this wouldn't change in a Communist system. People will always need to trade, so they'll always need to produce better goods.

Using that rationale, the Soviet Union would have been much more effective than our government in the US, which it obviously was not.

Well, it wasn't, because it was also corrupt and bloated. Dictatorships along the lines of Saddam Hussein are very effective.

Iraq has an effective form of government?

Yes, extremely. A terrible one, but it manages to get nearly-100% votes, and people dare not break the law, so it's obviously very effective.

There is no nation in history that has been as successful as this democratic republic in the US. Certainly no dictatorship.

The Roman and British Empires were more successful, certainly, in their time period.

Otherwise, why do people from all over the world emigrate and try to come here?

The same reason they try and emigrate to countries like Britain, France, Germany and Australia - because the quality of life is high.

- Scarlet.

 

TreeCave: It's hard to prove, but Thomas Jefferson believed it. Right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Surely a document on which the US is founded can be considered a proper source for a debate on capitalism.

Two things:

1. Obviously, the document itself doesn't give this right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So where does this right come from (I'm not denying that it exists, but I want to know where you think it comes from)?
2. By not hacking off a portion of my paycheck to feed the poor and starving in Africa, I am NOT contributing to their suffering. I'm simply failing to contribute to the solution. You can't hold me accountable for their loss, because I played no part in creating it. People do have a right to life (in the sense that no one should have the power to summarily take it away)--but the phrase "right to survival", especially in the sense it was used, implies failure on MY part if someone, somewhere, dies. Which isn't true.


Furthermore, the whole point of labor is not for people to get paid, it's for the human race as a whole to have its needs met.

No, that's the side-effect.
If everybody gets what they need, then obviously the needs of the human race (as individuals) have been met. Capitalism, by attempting to ensure that all exchanges are free (and thus virtually automatically win-win), excellently ensures that everybody can get ahead/can get what they need.


When the issue of employment itself prevents some from getting their needs met, that is an inherently bad system. We have more than enough resources for the whole population of earth to be fed, sheltered, and healthy, and yet we all mindlessly accept that "some people must be sacrificed for the good of everyone else". That's a "survival of the fittest" argument, not an argument based on the potential of humans to provide for themselves as a group.

Now we're beginning to slip into an unrealistic Utopian paradise. I'll address this point later.


TheScarletBanner: This is a childish view of anarchy. Anarchy is simply the state of no Government, not the state of no order. Order can be imposed socially by people of equal stature as yourself.

You cannot be so naive to believe that, with the type people in the world today, no oppression would occur in a state of anarchy. It would be rampant.


Capitalism may espouse a win-win ideal, but by the very nature of its theory it's always going to be win-lose(but survive, maybe), where the winners are the capitalists and the losers are the workers.

You're not connecting the dots. You have to explain it to me. How is Capitalism win-lose?


Bill Gates attended Harvard. He also did numerous things which are at the best unethical and at the worst completely illegal to get where he did.

"Attended" is right. He dropped out in his Junior year.
My point is that he didn't have to be one of the rich to become one of the rich.


Capitalism is about self-interest. Adam Smith said this in his Wealth of Nations. He argued that it benefitted society, but he said that the very BASIS of capitalism was self-acquisition. Self-acquisiton requires one to not give a crap about society

False.


but to hoard wealth.

Nobody ever gets rich by hoarding. Ever. Especially not in today's world.
Bill Gates doesn't "hoard" is wealth. Run down the entire Forbes 500 list, and you will not find one single person who hoards their wealth. The only way to expand capital is to feed it into the market, and by the very nature of the market, this means that virtually everyone benefits.


Well, if the right to survival doesn't exist, then NO right exists.

Okay, THAT you'll have to explain to me.


Why? I don't disagree paying for an items worth, but labour is not an item. It is a human process, and should be treated as such, not as some base commodity.

Question: Would you say that people should ideally be paid for the exact cost of their labor?


Capitalism

 

1. Obviously, the document itself doesn't give this right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So where does this right come from (I'm not denying that it exists, but I want to know where you think it comes from)?

From our birth. Those rights are our birthrights.

2. By not hacking off a portion of my paycheck to feed the poor and starving in Africa, I am NOT contributing to their suffering.

Yes, you are. Consider another analogy:

There is a man hanging over the edge of a cliff. You have the choice to help him up, but you know that if you do so, you may lose an arm. Do you do it? If you do, you're obviously selfless and courageous. If you don't, you're just as guilty as the person who let him hang there in the first place.

Willfully refusing to help someone when it is within your power to do so is, at best, prolonging their suffering, at worse, contributing to it.

I'm simply failing to contribute to the solution. You can't hold me accountable for their loss, because I played no part in creating it.

This shows a severe lack of responsibility. It is rather immature to assume that if you had no part in creating the problem you have no part in prolonging or contributing to it. It is within each of our powers to alleviate, even just a little bit, the suffering of people in the Third World countries - yet, many of us do not.

People do have a right to life (in the sense that no one should have the power to summarily take it away)--but the phrase "right to survival", especially in the sense it was used, implies failure on MY part if someone, somewhere, dies. Which isn't true.

Of course not. However, if you have the power to alleviate or end that suffering, and you fail to do so, you are guilty. It's just common sense and responsibility for one another.

If everybody gets what they need, then obviously the needs of the human race (as individuals) have been met. Capitalism, by attempting to ensure that all exchanges are free (and thus virtually automatically win-win), excellently ensures that everybody can get ahead/can get what they need.

You are making a mistake. Capitalism is not about ensuring everyone gets what they need. It is about acquisiton and self-interest, in the hopes that it may overall benefit society (the invisible hand theory of Adam Smith). However, this doesn't give big business license to exploit people as they do. Read "When Corporations Rule the World." It makes the case that the current capitalism, i.e., neoliberalism, are actually contrary to what Adam Smith would have wanted.

Now we're beginning to slip into an unrealistic Utopian paradise.

There is nothing unrealistic about it all. Industrialised nations, and the United States is the worst culprit, channel into their defense spending alone, each year, more than enough to give the entire world clean water.

You cannot be so naive to believe that, with the type people in the world today, no oppression would occur in a state of anarchy. It would be rampant.

Would you like to give sociological or psychological information to support this view? (And if you suggest The Lord of the Flies, I will cry). Have you ever watched a reality program? Do the people there lose their minds and cannibalise each other? In fact, no, they tend to come together a lot better and create functioning, communal societies.

You're not connecting the dots. You have to explain it to me. How is Capitalism win-lose?

Because one side gets what they want; the other side gets what they need. That is not win-win. That is win-lose(but survive). The VAST MAJORITY of people on this planet must sell their labour in order to survive - and many fail to do so (survive, that is).

"Attended" is right. He dropped out in his Junior year.
My point is that he didn't have to be one of the rich to become one of the rich.

Do you know how much BG had before he went to Harvard?

False.

//LAUGHS.

Ok. Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations.

"Every individual...gen

 

As for the George Washington biography. Anyone can take quotes and ideas from books to prove points. Take the following an example, from Marx's 'Capital':

The understandings of the greater part of men ... are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations ... has no occasion to exert his understanding... He generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become [...] The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind ... It corrupts even the activity of his body and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employments than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade seems in this manner to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. [...] this| is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall.

Would anyone of you capitalists care to refute that?

- Scarlet.

 

If everyone could share things on an equitable basis without government or laws and without any problems, of course people would do that and would have done that long ago.

They did. I keep mentioning clannish, tribal and nomadic peoples who did this with no serious problems. Certainly a lot less trouble than we have now. (Thanks, Scarlet, for defending this point - sorry to be redundant, but I thought perhaps the 5th times's the charm.)

The "Old West" also didn't have the sort of law and order we have nowadays. You couldn't call 911 and cower, waiting for rescuers. You were on your own - and so was the guy next door. While you could shoot him for skulking in the dark on your property and probably not get into trouble, he could shoot you too. THIS works better as a deterrent than the death penalty, because it's a one-step process. For your neighbor to get justice for you trespassing, he just shoots you - one step. Now, that neighbor would have to call cops, the cops would have to catch you, you'd have to be tried (and hope there's no technicalities).... the list goes on. It can be as many steps as your lawyer makes it.

ORDER is not dependent on government. Let's get that concept out and about once and for all. You can have order without government, when everyone has an equal right to defend himself against the next guy's trespasses.

So where does this right come from (I'm not denying that it exists, but I want to know where you think it comes from)?

In a court of law, I would say "our forefathers intended this, and we follow their Constitution". Jefferson believed it came from what he called "the Creator". In reality, I think it's a right we grant each other collectively. It's very simple - you don't need God to have morals. You just think "How would I feel if HE did this to ME instead of the other way around?" and you automatically don't do things you know are going to hurt someone. We all make wrong judgment calls - sometimes it's not obvious what's the best for all concerned. But that is the basic principle behind all morals - not God, not a document, not scripture: simply doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Forgive my putting it in Jesus' lingo - it's a maxim in every religion from Buddhism to Wicca, and I know atheists who follow it better than anyone.

Now we're beginning to slip into an unrealistic Utopian paradise. I'll address this point later.

No, I'm saying if your system doesn't even allow for the possibility of perfection, it sucks. Nothing will ever be perfect, but we shouldn't build a system around flaws. We should take flaws into account, but not remove the possibility of their being fixed. It's like a simple true-false test where somehow no one can possibly make 100% - it can only produce skewed results according to the prejudices of the teacher who wrote the test. Once people realize the tests are impossible to make 100% on, their drive to make 90% will decrease, and soon everyone will be languishing around 50%, if they even come to class at all.

Beautiful Marx quote, Scarlet.

 

From our birth. Those rights are our birthrights.

There are very few things in this world, TSB, that are the way they are just because, and this is not one of them. WHY are they our birthrights?


Willfully refusing to help someone when it is within your power to do so is, at best, prolonging their suffering, at worse, contributing to it.

There's a cup. It is full. This represents the suffering of someone in trouble.
My cup is empty. I could alleviate his trouble by spilling some of his cup into my own, and this would in fact be the moral thing to do. I never said it wasn't.
However, the total suffering in his cup would remain the same whether I saw his trouble, and refused to help him, or whether I never even met him.
By failing to alleviate his pain, I am not contributing to it.


Capitalism is not about ensuring everyone gets what they need. It is about acquisiton and self-interest, in the hopes that it may overall benefit society (the invisible hand theory of Adam Smith). However, this doesn't give big business license to exploit people as they do.

Are we talking about businesses hiring people or about business exporting labor to foreign countries?


Would you like to give sociological or psychological information to support this view? [Ed. ... the view that oppression would be rampant in a state of anarchy]

Your example of reality shows is ludicrous. ALL of the people on those types of shows are chosen to create dynamic tensions and situations for an enhanced viewing experience. There's nothing "real" about reality TV.
It's quite possible that some groups of people could live in harmony with each other. But this is anarchy we're talking about. When group A begins dumping their sewage in the stream, group B (convenient, down-stream neighbors) are going to get kind of annoyed when little Johny comes out of his bath smelling like poop. (An example only).
Look as far as the middle ages for a good example of people not getting along. Feudalism is a simple, logical step away from pure anarchy.


Because one side gets what they want; the other side gets what they need. That is not win-win. That is win-lose(but survive).

So if someone gets something that they NEED, they automatically lose?



Recalibrate the logic sensors, dude. They're kinda off track on this one.


Do you know how much BG had before he went to Harvard?

Not a little, but not a lot. He went to both public and private schools, if that tells you anything. He excelled academically.


[TSB]Capitalism is about self-interest. Adam Smith said this in his Wealth of Nations. He argued that it benefitted society, but he said that the very BASIS of capitalism was self-acquisition. Self-acquisiton requires one to not give a crap about society

[SF]False.

And then you laughed, and yada yada yada.
"Selfishly" acquiring the goods you need to survive or to raise your standard are leaving does not mean that you don't give a crap about society.


That is exactly how one gets rich. By acquiring money then conserving it. Trust me, I know.

But I don't trust you. In fact, I know you're wrong
I find it telling that you didn't refute my assertion about the men and women on the Forbes 500 list, but instead just told me I was wrong. C'mon. Try again.


The right to live is the fundamental right from which all others spring. Therefore, if you do not have that right, you have none.

Okay, that doesn't follow either.
Say I have a right to freedom of speech. Do I have that right BECAUSE I have a right to life? Doesn't seem that way to me, but I guess we'll need to answer the question of where the right to life comes from first.


[SF] Question: Would you say that people should ideally be paid for the exact cost of their labor?

[TSB] However much profit it produces.

So some people CAN get rich, by virtue of their working harder and producing more results, than the lazy ones. Theoretically, even considerably richer. Correct?

 

There are very few things in this world, TSB, that are the way they are just because, and this is not one of them. WHY are they our birthrights?

They are, not because they just "are." They are because, by common consensus, we have decided that those rights are our birthrights; the same birthrights that Western civilisation is built upon.

There's a cup. It is full. This represents the suffering of someone in trouble.
My cup is empty. I could alleviate his trouble by spilling some of his cup into my own, and this would in fact be the moral thing to do. I never said it wasn't.
However, the total suffering in his cup would remain the same whether I saw his trouble, and refused to help him, or whether I never even met him.

If you had never met him, you would not be knowledgeable of his suffering.

If you met im, and knew of his suffering, yet wilfully did nothing about it, you are contributing to his suffering - you are one less person who might extricate him from it.

Are we talking about businesses hiring people or about business exporting labor to foreign countries?

We're talking about the principles upon which capitalism is based; self-acquisition.

Your example of reality shows is ludicrous. ALL of the people on those types of shows are chosen to create dynamic tensions and situations for an enhanced viewing experience. There's nothing "real" about reality TV.

Which proves my point. Despite the fact that they were chosen so they could conflict, most of the time, they do not, outside of minor personality clashes. You never see them disband and try and live alone, or kill and oppress one another.

When group A begins dumping their sewage in the stream, group B (convenient, down-stream neighbors) are going to get kind of annoyed when little Johny comes out of his bath smelling like poop. (An example only).

The same thing happens in today's society. Your point being?

Look as far as the middle ages for a good example of people not getting along. Feudalism is a simple, logical step away from pure anarchy.

Feudalism is a logical step away from capitalism: the step backward. It's the position from which capitalism emerged. Anarchy came long before feudalism came about.

So if someone gets something that they NEED, they automatically lose?

No, they just don't win.

Not a little, but not a lot. He went to both public and private schools, if that tells you anything. He excelled academically.

Private schools. Yep. How many Ethiopians do you know that go to private schools? Or those in... say... Salt Lake City who live in trailer parks?

And then you laughed, and yada yada yada.
"Selfishly" acquiring the goods you need to survive or to raise your standard are leaving does not mean that you don't give a crap about society.

I didn't say that you didn't. I just said that capitalism was about naked self-interest. You said I was false. I proved that I was correct. End of issue?

But I don't trust you. In fact, I know you're wrong

My family is worth several million. I enquired of my father once what enabled him to remain wealthy. He said it was conservation and prudence, not risking it on frivolous things.

Okay, that doesn't follow either.
Say I have a right to freedom of speech. Do I have that right BECAUSE I have a right to life? Doesn't seem that way to me, but I guess we'll need to answer the question of where the right to life comes from first.

Yes. You can't have a freedom of speech if you aren't alive.

So some people CAN get rich, by virtue of their working harder and producing more results, than the lazy ones. Theoretically, even considerably richer. Correct?

Of course.

And what happens to those people?

Well, springing from the Marxist maxim (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs [and wants]), they would be provided for by the community. Either through family, preferably, or through a minimal tax.

Again, misleadi

 

They are, not because they just "are." They are because, by common consensus, we have decided that those rights are our birthrights; the same birthrights that Western civilisation is built upon.

So you and a good chunk of the people of the World suddenly speak for everyone, telling them what rights they do and do not have? How dictatorial.


If you met im, and knew of his suffering, yet wilfully did nothing about it, you are contributing to his suffering - you are one less person who might extricate him from it.

No. I do not contribute to, I do not enlarge, his suffering by one iota by not helping him. His suffering would be the same as if I never knew he existed. If I do not affect his level of suffering, I cannot add to it or diminish it.


Which proves my point. Despite the fact that they were chosen so they could conflict, most of the time, they do not, outside of minor personality clashes. You never see them disband and try and live alone, or kill and oppress one another.

They weren't chosen to conflict. They were chosen to create an interesting dynamic. No one wants to see people argue and argue and argue.
It's also important to note that these people are consciously performing on a popular medium. People tend to control their vices when they know that others are watching.


Feudalism is a logical step away from capitalism: the step backward. It's the position from which capitalism emerged. Anarchy came long before feudalism came about.

I never said it didn't.
Feudalism is the result of the strong conquering the weak. Since most people are inherently selfish, a state of feudalism would arise out of anarchy much more easily than a state of communism.


Private schools. Yep. How many Ethiopians do you know that go to private schools? Or those in... say... Salt Lake City who live in trailer parks?

You are so right. People should stop going to private schools. It's ludicrous that some people get better education than others. Tear the bigots down from their high places, I say!

// sarcasm

As an aside, have you noticed how the privately-owned and run schools are somehow, ummmm .... better? Oh, don't bother replying. Your previous answer already told me that you have.


I just said that capitalism was about naked self-interest. You said I was false.

I was responding to "Self-acquisiton requires one to not give a crap about society". Which is false.


My family is worth several million. I enquired of my father once what enabled him to remain wealthy. He said it was conservation and prudence, not risking it on frivolous things.

There's a huge difference between hoarding your money and conserving and not risking it. Go ask your dad if he kept all his money in a bank account, or if that would be a stupid thing to do.


[SF]So some people CAN get rich, by virtue of their working harder and producing more results, than the lazy ones. Theoretically, even considerably richer. Correct?

[TSB]Of course.

Well, gosh, I could've sworn you listed classlessness as a pro to Communism. Scratch that off the list.


Well, springing from the Marxist maxim (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs [and wants]), they would be provided for by the community. Either through family, preferably, or through a minimal tax.

A minimal tax? So ... it's not that there ISN'T a government. It's more like everybody is in it. Sounds kind of like socialism.
Unless it was a voluntary tax ... you know, everybody decided to pay it for the good of the community ... but realistically, who pays voluntary taxes?
Ahhh. And we're back to our mythical ethical and moral superstud.


Wrong. You have a very high view of capitalists. The fact of the matter is, capitalism is about competition. What is the competition about? Profit. What raises profit? Well, producing more and selling more goods, obviously. But also cutting costs. What's the best way to cut costs? Employ as few people as possible. It's called common s

 

LOL @ StarFire

These commies really have no grip on reality.

 

So you and a good chunk of the people of the World suddenly speak for everyone, telling them what rights they do and do not have? How dictatorial.

How can a majority be 'dictatorial'? It's called democracy.

No. I do not contribute to, I do not enlarge, his suffering by one iota by not helping him.

You can still contribute to without enlarging his suffering. You have the means to help this man from falling off a cliff. He knows it to (remember the basis for the analogy). You refuse to do so. Don't you think that would increase his suffering?

They weren't chosen to conflict. They were chosen to create an interesting dynamic.

i.e., to conflict.

Arguments like that boost ratings.

I never said it didn't.
Feudalism is the result of the strong conquering the weak. Since most people are inherently selfish, a state of feudalism would arise out of anarchy much more easily than a state of communism.

We know, historically, this to be false. There were several other states of society before feudalism came about. But capitalism came DIRECTLY out of feudalism.

You are so right. People should stop going to private schools. It's ludicrous that some people get better education than others. Tear the bigots down from their high places, I say!

// sarcasm

I wasn't saying that. I was countering your point that anyone can make it, and Bill Gates was an example of that.

I was responding to "Self-acquisiton requires one to not give a crap about society". Which is false.

When did I say that it required one to not give a crap?

There's a huge difference between hoarding your money and conserving and not risking it. Go ask your dad if he kept all his money in a bank account, or if that would be a stupid thing to do.

Well, of course he didn't.

Well, gosh, I could've sworn you listed classlessness as a pro to Communism. Scratch that off the list.

Wait - since when does one set of people having more money than another suddenly created classes? That is economic distinction. Classes come about when one portion of society has dominance over another.

A minimal tax? So ... it's not that there ISN'T a government. It's more like everybody is in it. Sounds kind of like socialism.
Unless it was a voluntary tax ... you know, everybody decided to pay it for the good of the community ... but realistically, who pays voluntary taxes?

Presumably people who want to live in areas with better services?


And why do business need to cut costs? To remain competitive. They can sack a few employees now, or sack them all when profits go in the red and the investors scram. Which one makes more sense?

Thanks for proving my point.


Soo ... would anyone be forced into unemployment under Communism?

Only if there were no jobs whatsoever.

Wait wait wait--council? You've got a government, or you don't. And a council has a decidedly "governing body" feel to it.

By council I mean a group of people who get together to organise things for the community. Sort of like Neighbourhood Watch. Would you call NW a Government?

Earlier you dictated lack of government as an important characteristic of Communism. Is this no longer the case?

Uh, since when is a police force a Government?

These commies really have no grip on reality.

Oh, shut up. If you have nothing to contribute to the argument, stay out of it.

- Scarlet.

 

How can a majority be 'dictatorial'? It's called democracy.

No, not in this case. If I never agreed to live by your rules, then forcing them on me is dictatorial. In a pure democracy, everybody must agree to go with the majority. But I never agreed to do any such thing.


You can still contribute to without enlarging his suffering. You have the means to help this man from falling off a cliff. He knows it to (remember the basis for the analogy). You refuse to do so. Don't you think that would increase his suffering?

If we're talking about the VERY basis of the discussion, then no, I don't think the needy in Africa know that I'm personally not actively contributing to the effort to ease their suffering. In the other situation you speak of, my mere presence could, theoretically, increase someone's suffering.


They weren't chosen to conflict. They were chosen to create an interesting dynamic.

i.e., to conflict.

People can form alliances to. Scheming and conniving are the dynamics here. Unity, in a sense, and conflict, but not just conflict. Let's drop this, shall we?


We know, historically, this to be false. There were several other states of society before feudalism came about. But capitalism came DIRECTLY out of feudalism.

Did I ever say it didn't?


I wasn't saying that. I was countering your point that anyone can make it, and Bill Gates was an example of that.

It's no secret that education plays an important role in your welfare in life. However, there are good examples of the poor becoming affluent and successful which would seem to indicate that you don't have to be well off initially to become rich. The success of Dr. Benjamin Carson, the ingenius neurosurgeon at John Hopkins Hospital, is an excellent example.


When did I say that it required one to not give a crap?

*Ahem*:

Capitalism is about self-interest. Adam Smith said this in his Wealth of Nations. He argued that it benefitted society, but he said that the very BASIS of capitalism was self-acquisition. Self-acquisiton requires one to not give a crap about society

Wait - since when does one set of people having more money than another suddenly created classes?

I dunno. Ask yourself.

Classes, I'm sure you'll agree, are based upon economic divisions, on TOP of which social divisions come about. These economic divisions are created by ownership and wealth (i.e., capital, not income).

Presumably people who want to live in areas with better services?

How small are these communities? They'd have to be pretty small for people, the selfish buggers they are, to take interest enough to voluntarily pay taxes.
Or ... were we talking about the supermen of perfection again?


Thanks for proving my point.

Merry Christmas


Only if there were no jobs whatsoever.

And jobs are available as long as the "company" can afford to pay a salary? (I apologize for using terms such as "salary"--I know they don't accurately reflect the Communist ideal, but you get what I mean).


By council I mean a group of people who get together to organise things for the community. Sort of like Neighbourhood Watch. Would you call NW a Government?

So they decide on things that don't affect anybody or order anybody to do something--gotcha.


Uh, since when is a police force a Government?

A police force implies jurisdiction. And, by their very nature, it's implied that they have some power to order the lives of the general populace. Like governments, they are an authoritarian force (though perhaps on a smaller scale).

 

That makes it sound like the filthy, selfish businesses are refusing to hire people so they can abuse their workers some more and save a few bucks.

Exactly, except for the "abuse" phrase. Of course they refuse to hire people so as to save money. Just as you might refuse to buy new clothes this season to save money, if you can get a few more miles out of the old clothes. And let's face it - precious few humans (employers or otherwise) understand that positive reinforcement motivates people a lot better than fear.

Here's a novel suggestion: maybe most business can't afford ( shocked.gif ) to hire more workers.

"Can't afford" is all about priorities. I've seen too many companies in the past three decades say, "We can't afford bonuses/raises/new hires this year" then spend hundreds of thousands on new computers, or a breakroom or new decor.

Conversely, how do murder or robbery investigations get carried out? Since it would be contrary to the spirit of Communism for someone to have jurisdiction (control) over another without any due cause, how would you find you if people are guilty or innocent? How do you begin to look?

Again, tribal people managed to do this and bring people to justice. I doubt they violated anyone's rights anymore often than we have - as DNA evidence is proving rapidly.

The system DOES allow for the possibility of perfection, depending on what you mean by perfection.

You said some people must always be unemployed. That means some people will starve to death, because employment is essential to survival for many of us. Building a system that PLANS for people to be unemployed sounds disastrous. Since we do have enough food for everyone, "perfection" would be no one having to starve for lack of employment. If capitalism requires unemployment, it needs to make sure it has resources for the unemployed while they are making their valuable contribution to the capitalist machine, as temporary non-laborers. And if you argue that "unemployment insurance" exists, I will have to assure you it really doesn't work for honest claimers half as well as it does for dishonest ones here in the US.

And if unemployment is necessary, why do we hold the unemployed in such scorn? Heck, someone who makes $50k a year working temp jobs is treated as suspicious when they put their employment info down on an application for an apartment or mortgage, strictly because they aren't receiving a paycheck every week for a normal job.

Private schools. Yep. How many Ethiopians do you know that go to private schools? Or those in... say... Salt Lake City who live in trailer parks?

Or expatriated West Virginians.

My family is worth several million. I enquired of my father once what enabled him to remain wealthy. He said it was conservation and prudence, not risking it on frivolous things.

Hoarding does not MAKE you rich, but it is the only thing that keeps you rich. I used to work for a business manager, so I have to agree with this point.

Why would a community elect a group of ne'er-do-well followers to their council?

Hmm. I wonder! (looks askance at the US Congress)

If you run your car over my kid, I'll put a bullet in your head. That should discourage you pretty fast from speeding again, wouldn't you say? People will be aware of this, and thus will not speed.

A nice example of frontier justice - what I was referring to with my "Old West" example.

So you and a good chunk of the people of the World suddenly speak for everyone, telling them what rights they do and do not have? How dictatorial.

Yes, and how very Capitalist. Sounds like the US involvement in Viet Nam and Desert Storm to me, not to mention our attempts to make peace in the middle east. (Current attempts to disembowel Al Queda excepted - you have the moral right to take down a mad killer before he kills again). Then again, maybe this isn't capitalism, perhaps America really is imperialistic, as many claim. But I think it's capi

 

No, not in this case. If I never agreed to live by your rules, then forcing them on me is dictatorial. In a pure democracy, everybody must agree to go with the majority. But I never agreed to do any such thing.

No, it is not dictatorial. It is just not a liberal democracy. We live in liberal democracies, where the wishes of the many are carried out, as long as they don't interfere with the rights of the few. Having pure, or athenian democracy, doesn't make a majority dictatorship.

You can still contribute to without
[i[If we're talking about the VERY basis of the discussion, then no, I don't think the needy in Africa know that I'm personally not actively contributing to the effort to ease their suffering. In the other situation you speak of, my mere presence could, theoretically, increase someone's suffering. [/i]

We weren't referring to individual people. We were referring to the Third World vs. industrialised nations.

People can form alliances to.

Exactly. Alliances and cliques. Conflicts.

It's no secret that education plays an important role in your welfare in life. However, there are good examples of the poor becoming affluent and successful which would seem to indicate that you don't have to be well off initially to become rich. The success of Dr. Benjamin Carson, the ingenius neurosurgeon at John Hopkins Hospital, is an excellent example.

Name someone not from an industrialised nation who made it to wealth. Then relate that to what their chances are.

How small are these communities? They'd have to be pretty small for people, the selfish buggers they are, to take interest enough to voluntarily pay taxes.
Or ... were we talking about the supermen of perfection again?

No. There would be communities where there would be no tax. There would be communities where there ARE tax. People would move away from the taxed communities if they didn't want to pay, or more TO them if they wanted better services.

So they decide on things that don't affect anybody or order anybody to do something--gotcha.

No, they don't order anyone to do something. They might act like a liason between local businesses for trade. Or a council in appointing times for garbage to be collected, or roads to be fixed (by whomever wants to be a road-fixer).

A police force implies jurisdiction. And, by their very nature, it's implied that they have some power to order the lives of the general populace. Like governments, they are an authoritarian force (though perhaps on a smaller scale).

Government - gov·ern·ment P Pronunciation Key (gvrn-mnt)
n.

The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.

Read it, understand it, love it.

- Scarlet.

 

I'm just waiting for the rest of my family to wake up, but I wanted to correct one misunderstanding.

You said some people must always be unemployed. That means some people will starve to death, because employment is essential to survival for many of us. Building a system that PLANS for people to be unemployed sounds disastrous. Since we do have enough food for everyone, "perfection" would be no one having to starve for lack of employment. If capitalism requires unemployment, it needs to make sure it has resources for the unemployed while they are making their valuable contribution to the capitalist machine, as temporary non-laborers. And if you argue that "unemployment insurance" exists, I will have to assure you it really doesn't work for honest claimers half as well as it does for dishonest ones here in the US.

While capitalism does require a small group of people to be unemployed, there appears to be a few misunderstandings about that. It is not one group of people constantly unemployed. It is a very fluid group of people looking for new jobs. It includes the people who (like one friend of my family) decide to leave their job without having a new job lined up.

Almost everyone is unemployed at some point for a short period of time. That is actually a sign of a healthy market, because you have a pool of potential workers to hire to fill positions as needed. It is a constantly rotating group of people.

And now, I wish you all a Merry Christmas or, if you prefer, a Merry Bah, Happy Humbug, and Jingle Bells to y'all!

Kimball Kinnison

 

It is a very fluid group of people looking for new jobs. It includes the people who (like one friend of my family) decide to leave their job without having a new job lined up.

Yes, but it also includes people like me who end up unemployed during an "employer's market". If my mother - who can barely afford her own living expenses - and my credit cards hadn't been there, I would have been homeless, which is just fine by capitalists. Now I'm $10,000 in debt from having to charge necessities just to stay alive (and this doesn't include my college loan debt, which was the stupidest money I ever spent).

Bottom line: Americans do not care if I starve to death, no matter what I might have to contribute. This is capitalism. Some must be sacrificed so that others can have more than they need. How do you suppose this has made me feel? Well, a lot of celebs have stories about bullies who told them they were losers - like those celebs, I am determined to beat everyone and show them what losers THEY are and be a winner myself. But I will not be compassionate in my revenge, and capitalists have brought it on themselves.

You'll think this is just weird rambling, but this is the true purpose of capitalism - to cull the herd until what's left is only those who have a monstrous will to survive. Someday, it will be one of you starving to death, and I will be in a position to help, and I will not be bothered.

 

TC is a good example of the conscious proletariat (sorry to use you an example, TC).

If the capitalist system continues to operate in this way, people like TC will become more common. As technology marches on, and in industrialised nations we continue to adopt a more tertiary-based industry, there will be more and more people disenfranchised and unemployed.

Eventually, there will be class consciousness and a revolution. Capitalism either has to change to embrace people, not money, (and I don't see this happening), or it will die its death sooner, rather than later (only an idiot would say that capitalism will last forever. Just looking at history, it is undeniable that periodcally there are massive social upheavels in which the superstructure of society is torn asunder and rebuilt).

- Scarlet

 

Capitalism won't last forever. It's simply the last evolutionary step for an economic system based on scarcity.

Soon, perhaps within a few generations, there will be a technological revolution enfranchising everyone and ending primitive economic and monetary systems dealing with distribution of scarce resources.

IMO, Capitalism is the end of a long-line of soon-to-be outdated means of distributing finite goods and services.

TSB, you were nearly right about Feudalism leading directly to Capitalism, except you missed one in between system which was Mercantilism(16th thru late 18th centuries).


Happy Holidays everyone! Bourgeoisie and Proletarians alike.

 

TSB, you were nearly right about Feudalism leading directly to Capitalism, except you missed one in between system which was Mercantilism(16th thru late 18th centuries).

I neglected to mention Mercantilism because it didn't strike me as a major form of society. I mean, in between the primitive communistic societies and the current capitalist one, there have been literally hundreds, but I left ones which didn't create massive social upheavel and restructuring (like the Ancient Asiatic ones, Roman-style slavery, feudalism, capitalism, etc.), which demanded an entire change in our economic and social relations.

- Scarlet.

 

TreeCave: Again, tribal people managed to do this and bring people to justice. I doubt they violated anyone's rights anymore often than we have - as DNA evidence is proving rapidly.

These tribal people were considerably less complex than we were, sociologically, technologically, and economically. Vigilante justice in today's society would only increase injustice.


You said some people must always be unemployed. That means some people will starve to death, because employment is essential to survival for many of us. Building a system that PLANS for people to be unemployed sounds disastrous.

1: The system doesn't PLAN for people to be unemployed. This is how the free market works.
2: As Kimball Kinnison said, the same people aren't unemployed all the time. I'd be interested in seeing statistics on the number of people that starve to death in the United States because they're unemployed.
3: If it sounds so disastrous, why has it worked so well for past couple hundred years?


No, but if the poor person has ethics, he's almost always screwed. Fortunately, Gates has no ethics. He's the ideal capitalist.

Oh come on. Several times I've gone over how exploitation is NOT the Capitalist ideology, and every time it goes virtually unchallenged. And yet I still see blatantly untrue comments like this pop up.
It is fallacious to confuse errors of implementation of the system as errors of the system itself.


TheScarletBanner: No, it is not dictatorial. It is just not a liberal democracy. We live in liberal democracies, where the wishes of the many are carried out, as long as they don't interfere with the rights of the few. Having pure, or athenian democracy, doesn't make a majority dictatorship.

You're missing my point completely. I'm not talking about the decision of the many trampling on the rights of the few. I'm saying that the many don't HAVE to right to impose their dictums on the few.
The United States cannot dictate to the people of Denmark laws on homicide, because Denmark is an individual state, not under our jurisdiction. Conversely, you as a member of a so-called majority have no right to dictate what my rights are and are not, because that was never your right in the first place. You do not own me, nor does the rest of the human race. You have no jurisdiction over me, and thus--QED--you cannot dictate my rights.


Name someone not from an industrialised nation who made it to wealth. Then relate that to what their chances are.

Oh, come on. You know as well as I do that some people simply won't have the opportunities, the education. You're asking to take the poorest, most miserable person on earth and to then relate to you their chances of success in the commercial world. Pfff. Loaded dice, my friend.
But I'd be interested in hearing why they're so much better off under Communism (since I assume that's what you're implying).


Government - gov·ern·ment P Pronunciation Key (gvrn-mnt)
n.

The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.

Read it, understand it, love it.

*cough*

There may be regional, democratically-elected councils to oversee minor things like waste collection, trade, and so on, but the 'teeth' of the Government, i.e., the military by which it can oppress people, would not exist. Nor would the police force.

It almost sounds like you're making this stuff up as you go along.
A police force is, by it's nature, an authoritative force, like government. Quibbling over terminology is a waste of both our times.


Here are two misconceptions which seem to appear frequently.

1: The first misconception seems to be that everyone will benefit under Communism, even that there would be no poor. But I know both of you are too intelligent to believe that. So what about the poorer communities? What do they have to offer to others, as members of the free market? TSB has said that the "systematic exploitation" which