@"The_Questioner"
Not all capitalists treat their underlings like dirt. Look at Bill Gates.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You messed up. Now I gotta mess you up. It's the law." —BA baracus (Mr.T)
"CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!" --Tzneetch in regards to a chess match against Creed.
Well to be honest, socialism and by extension communism, are both very romantic views of how a society should work. Unfortunately, and cliche as it is, human nature is not very compatible with such a society.
Human nature is very arguable when it is based off a system that breeds competition, hierarchy, and economical inequality since birth. You cannot speak of cooperation when the current generations are bred in a dog eats dog world of fierce competition on every scale. The system needs to be overhauled, generations to come need to be taught cooperation over competition to achieve mutual goals, that can only happen in a communist (or arguably too, a Socialist) system.
observe:
You grow eight turnips on a government farm, and you are given five because that is all you need.
Your neighbor grows six turnips on another government owned farm, but gets nine because his family is large.
You begin to wonder why you work hard, but get rewarded less than someone who you see as lazy. You demand more turnips, the officials refuse and you start a riot.
You have just burned down the farms you both work on and the people starve.
Yes I understand perfectly, the problem is you are mixing private property with government owned property (trying to differentiate it from public property). The correct way to define what you are attempting to say in that "anecdote" way would be:
You and other farmers grown turnips on a farm not owned by anyone, but entirely managed by the workers themselves. These workers grow 100 turnips in total, person A has is single and thus only needs 10 turnips, person B has 5 kids and a wife and thus will need 50 turnips, etc. It is not that you are "given" anything, it is what you take as you need, you will not take 50 turnips if you are single and give 10 turnips to a person with 6 mouths to feed. You have to also realize that food is not only limited to turnips, that there will be thousands of other types of food and farms. Not only that, but you seem to have removed any mention of technology where by peasants used to use plows to reap 5-6 bushels of wheat per day, yet today, we have the technology to reap thousands of bushels of wheat and thousands of other food types to feed the starving. So continuing with the story, person A(for argument's sake) will not see a reason why he has to have more than he needs as compared to person B who has many mouths to feed. That person A will not feel annoyed since what he is reaping is not for himself only, but to feed thousands, he will be able by contributing this small amount, to access the "communal storage" of that society and take what he needs as long as it is a reasonable diamond.
Capitalism, although not as morally upright, has a different approach.
observe:
You grow ten turnips on a farm you own, and sell the four you do not need to make a profit.
Your neighbor is not as good a farmer as you, he only grows four turnips and sells one to help put a dent in the debt he is in.
You use your profit to buy stock in his farm so you are a shareholder. Eventually you own his farm and he works for you as a subordinate. You treat him like the dirt he works on, but keep him fed because he won't be a good worker to you hungry.
Both farms prosper and you become wealthy, but your neighbor hates you.
I hope I didn't dumb this down too much but I wanted it to be easier to read, and give my opinion in a short concise manner.
Hm, yes, very simplified. We are taking into consideration that person A (the better farmer) is a self-employed worker with no one already making his profits for him. That later changes and he hires person B to reap what he sows after putting him out of business and forced into selling his labor to another for a petty wage. What you have outlined there is the basics of worker exploitation and wage-slavery. You did not mention the wage being paid, whether person A still works on that farm or sits on his desk, what happened to person B financially and socially, what will the future of person B's children be, and you are feeding him yourself which is not always the case since person B is being paid and is expected to feed himself with that measly pay. Both farms prosper and you become wealthy at the expense of many lives or a person B's life in this case that is ruined, that is Capitalism basically, "Many die of starvation so a few can live in over consumption, that is the basis of Capitalism."
@"The_Questioner"
Not all capitalists treat their underlings like dirt. Look at Bill Gates.
Sadly not everyone works for Bill Gates, but let's not take a specific case when we do not know the wages paid and benefits given to the workers.
Well to be honest, socialism and by extension communism, are both very romantic views of how a society should work. Unfortunately, and cliche as it is, human nature is not very compatible with such a society.
Human nature is very arguable when it is based off a system that breeds competition, hierarchy, and economical inequality since birth. You cannot speak of cooperation when the current generations are bred in a dog eats dog world of fierce competition on every scale. The system needs to be overhauled, generations to come need to be taught cooperation over competition to achieve mutual goals, that can only happen in a communist (or arguably too, a Socialist) system.
Correct: people are greedy, arrogant, and needy, that is why we take to Capitalism
like a fish to water.
Now my post was short and to the point, and it is obvious that you read it, and it's also glaringly apparent that you are a staunch believer in socialism.
What is not clear is if you really understood what I was saying.
To clarify: Socialism is a great system; it promotes equality and fairness. The problem is that it is the very definition of the word "utopia": a place that can never be reached.
I know this is pessimistic and cynical, maybe even too much so, but people and socialism do not mix. You can obtain it in very small communities but even this will decay. As far as I have seen most major governments that have tried to sustain a socialist state have decayed rapidly into the same petty bureaucracies that they fought to exterminate.
Capitalism is far from ideal, but it is one of the few economic systems that has thrived throughout its conception.
It is the economic basis for many world powers, and as I put it in my "World economics for ages 4 and up" post: it may not be the most morally correct, it is far from the fairest, but it is well within reach and it is attainable.
I was willing to admit the flaws in the economic system of my preference, are you willing to do the same?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"May god have mercy on my enemies, because I will not." - George S. Patton
Correct: people are greedy, arrogant, and needy, that is why we take to Capitalism
like a fish to water.
Now my post was short and to the point, and it is obvious that you read it, and it's also glaringly apparent that you are a staunch believer in socialism.
What is not clear is if you really understood what I was saying.
To clarify: Socialism is a great system; it promotes equality and fairness. The problem is that it is the very definition of the word "utopia": a place that can never be reached.
I know this is pessimistic and cynical, maybe even too much so, but people and socialism do not mix. You can obtain it in very small communities but even this will decay. As far as I have seen most major governments that have tried to sustain a socialist state have decayed rapidly into the same petty bureaucracies that they fought to exterminate.
Capitalism is far from ideal, but it is one of the few economic systems that has thrived throughout its conception.
It is the economic basis for many world powers, and as I put it in my "World economics for ages 4 and up" post: it may not be the most morally correct, it is far from the fairest, but it is well within reach and it is attainable.
I was willing to admit the flaws in the economic system of my preference, are you willing to do the same?
First of all, as I had said before, a person is not greedy by nature, but basically due to socialization. The implementation of the need to compete with others instead of cooperate with them is constantly shoved down that person's throat since a very young age. "Human nature is very arguable when it is based off a system that breeds competition, hierarchy, and economical inequality since birth. You cannot speak of cooperation when the current generations are bred in a dog eats dog world of fierce competition on every scale. The system needs to be overhauled, generations to come need to be taught cooperation over competition to achieve mutual goals, that can only happen in a communist (or arguably too, a Socialist) system."
I'm not a Socialist per se, and thus I can admit that it does and will have a hard time being applied. Socialism is merely a temporary transitional state to communism, that in certain aspects is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, whereby the suppression of the bourgeoisie would take place after which they would reach the final stage of Marx's: communism.
Socialism is not a permanent system, it should not be compared to Capitalism in my opinion. Socialism merely attempt to put a human face on Capitalism, it attempts to end or simply class conflict by taking power out of the hands of the bourgeoisie and giving it to the workers (how it is given really differs, some used Soviets, other used totalitarian government or dictatorships). That being said, Socialism is also constantly being tested: as you can see by the many different "types" of Socialism: that of the USSR, Cuba, China, etc.
Now as an Anarcho-Communist, I do not really support Socialism or a Worker's State to take power for 40+ years in the name of the workers. No, I believe that there must be a direct transition from the current system to communism. By direct transition I do not mean an over-night phenomenon and overhaul of a new system, of course not. By direct transition I mean the skipping of the transitional state in favor of workers' organization, expropriation, and complete workers' democracy similar to the Soviets. With that proper organization of society on a federal basis and fully in favor of the workers, we can then think of moving onto communism since we would have already formed what is necessary to achieve communism without having to go through with utilizing the "prime evil" in our favor. This is really besides the point though and I will stop here.
Capitalism is not ideal, just, nor even promotes equality as you have said yourself, and going on with this, we must not continue to allow it to exist. We cannot simply because of Capitalism's existence, deny other systems that are more just and equal simply because the former is already achieved. To give up hope on an alternative system simply by claiming that they cannot be achieved and justifying that claim by stating reasons of "human nature" (which is corrupted by Capitalism, competition instead of cooperation) and because it is attainable is reeking of the stench of misanthropist poppycock and is counter-productive at best.
To support Capitalism simply because it is attainable is also complete nonsense. Should we then support Monarchies, Feudalism, and others simply because they are attainable when we also recognize their atrocities, inequality, unfairness and many evils? Ergo, should we support Capitalism when we realize its atrocities, inequality, unfairness and the many evils it upholds simply because thinking otherwise is "Utopian" and because Capitalism is attainable? We cannot judge something never before achieved, such as communism, and claim that s it not workable since it has never been applied in history on a large-scale. You need to work for a better system, Lenin and others speak of Marxism as science and communism as very far from Utopian in the books.
"It is the economic basis for many world powers"
And it is the basis for many third-world countries and their poverty as well as the starving millions.
"I was willing to admit the flaws in the economic system of my preference, are you willing to do the same?"
Flaws in Socialism? yes, since a government is instated, it is easily corruptible and turned into a traitorous bureaucracy for the petty bourgeois to make millions off the back of others. Equality of wages is a problem too, need I speak of the old doctor and janitor analogy? Benefits and some extra privileges need to be given to the doctor. That or opportunities need to be made for the janitor at an early age to allow him to become a doctor of sorts since as is known, to become a doctor you will mainly need a privileged background and enough funding to go through with your studies (let us not speak of the very are and special cases, shall we?), which a normal worker does not have and is too busy trying to put food on the table then to actually care or be able to continue his studies.
Just want to make some statements.
1. Tormented - I agree with so much of what you're saying. You make me happy that FINALLY I know someone who sees Communism and Socialism the way I do. Even though you lean towards Anarchy-Communism, I have never really met anyone who truly understood the principles of Communism itself, and the way that humanity must be re-conditioned by future generations in order to fully accept them.
In fact, there are so many people I've talked to that deny Communism would ever work... I have actually doubted myself so many times and just thought I was crazy a few of those times...
I'm very glad to finally meet someone who understands the same political ideals. :smile.gif:
2. Whoever mentioned about Bill Gates not treating his workers terribly apparently knows absolutely nothing about Bill Gates. Not only does he treat people as idiots, he was actually known to do so on a regular basis simply because he did not like their ideas.
As an executive, Gates met regularly with Microsoft's senior managers and program managers. Firsthand accounts of these meetings describe him as verbally combative, berating managers for perceived holes in their business strategies or proposals that placed the company's long-term interests at risk.[38][39] He often interrupted presentations with such comments as, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!"[40] and, "Why don't you just give up your options and join the Peace Corps?"[41] The target of his outburst then had to defend the proposal in detail until, hopefully, Gates was fully convinced.[40] When subordinates appeared to be procrastinating, he was known to remark sarcastically, "I'll do it over the weekend."[42][43][44]
Just want to make some statements.
1. Tormented - I agree with so much of what you're saying. You make me happy that FINALLY I know someone who sees Communism and Socialism the way I do. Even though you lean towards Anarchy-Communism, I have never really met anyone who truly understood the principles of Communism itself, and the way that humanity must be re-conditioned by future generations in order to fully accept them.
In fact, there are so many people I've talked to that deny Communism would ever work... I have actually doubted myself so many times and just thought I was crazy a few of those times...
I'm very glad to finally meet someone who understands the same political ideals. :smile.gif:
2. Whoever mentioned about Bill Gates not treating his workers terribly apparently knows absolutely nothing about Bill Gates. Not only does he treat people as idiots, he was actually known to do so on a regular basis simply because he did not like their ideas.
As an executive, Gates met regularly with Microsoft's senior managers and program managers. Firsthand accounts of these meetings describe him as verbally combative, berating managers for perceived holes in their business strategies or proposals that placed the company's long-term interests at risk.[38][39] He often interrupted presentations with such comments as, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!"[40] and, "Why don't you just give up your options and join the Peace Corps?"[41] The target of his outburst then had to defend the proposal in detail until, hopefully, Gates was fully convinced.[40] When subordinates appeared to be procrastinating, he was known to remark sarcastically, "I'll do it over the weekend."[42][43][44]
Well, that is why I did not really want to emphasize the arguments on Anarcho-Communism since we are speaking generally of Communism. Speaking of which, have you considered joining the Anarcho-Communists of Minecraft group? Yes, the name may seem very questionable and unappealing to you, but the "group" accepts Leftists (Socialists) of all kinds as long as they agree with the group (agreeing essentially with communism). Here you go, check it out if you want: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=11997
The group is based on communism, collectivism, and following "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (communal open storages), it is also leaderless and non-hierarchical, voting and decision-making is also made through Direct Democracy or Consensus Decision-Making.
well, here we go *takes deep breath and holds nose*
If you look at any government on paper it looks great but in practice NO government can work when followed to the T.
Governments only work when there is a balance of power. the United states, while democratic and capitalist, has MANY socialist characteristics (ie: welfare, unemployment, disability and the currently debated Obamacare but that's for another thread) and a system of checks and balances. the U.S is also a Republic (democratic republic to be exact) which means while everyone has equal say in how the government is run, we elect people to represent us in those views.
the "perfect" government is a mixture of communism, democracy, capitalism, and socialism (yes communism and socialism go hand in hand but there are still differences) where while everyone is equal, there is room for improvement and advancement in the social and economic ladder.
Well, that is why I did not really want to emphasize the arguments on Anarcho-Communism since we are speaking generally of Communism. Speaking of which, have you considered joining the Anarcho-Communists of Minecraft group? Yes, the name may seem very questionable and unappealing to you, but the "group" accepts Leftists (Socialists) of all kinds as long as they agree with the group (agreeing essentially with communism). Here you go, check it out if you want: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=11997
The group is based on communism, collectivism, and following "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (communal open storages), it is also leaderless and non-hierarchical, voting and decision-making is also made through Direct Democracy or Consensus Decision-Making.
Please don't advertise your views, this is a debate.
Please don't advertise your views, this is a debate.
I'm not advertising my views, I'm merely redirecting a person to a clan that coincides with the communist ideology that he seems to uphold. I have also explained the fundamentals of the clan, as any other person would do which you seem to mistake for advertising my views. Oh and that post was not directed at you nor was it part of a debate to be "open" for external replies and thus: it is none of your business.
Capitalism is a MASK for communism. The only difference is that the communists can freely say, without any restrains, "We own your ass and you can do nothing about it.".
Actually, the "we own your ass and you can do nothing about it" is a Capitalist saying thanks to the bourgeois-worker relationship. Communism involves no leaders.
Actually, the "we own your ass and you can do nothing about it" is a Capitalist saying thanks to the bourgeois-worker relationship. Communism involves no leaders.
I hate when somebody takes me like a 8-yr. old blind brat. But I hate pro-communists more than ever. More than the american-Illuminati or the Freemasonry.
BE GONE
When somebody replies like that, does he expect a proper reply or to be taken seriously?
Collectivist systems like Socialism and Communism force all into uniform mediocrity. Even those who could be great will be treated as mediocre. Even those who are beneath mediocrity will be treated as mediocre. When corrupted, this sytem lets the privileged few live like kings, while their pets get a snack every now and then, and everyone else lives in uniform squalor.
A system like capitalism allows all to vie for their place at the top of the heap, and tends to result with a few (the lucky, or the wise, or the immoral) having "an awful, awful lot" and the rest being spread out from "a fair bit, but nothing preposterous" to "next to nothing". Of course, those at the top of the heap don't want to come down, so they will try to manipulate the market (perfectly reasonable) or the government (that's breaking the rules) to keep them up there, and to keep others down. Capitalism allows any man who has greatness in him to be great, because his right to try is protected, and his motives are kept his own. When corrupted, the aforementioned manipulation of the government (a body which, generally speaking, should act primarily to enforce lawful contracts and protect people from coercion - though as the economy becomes more and more mixed, they are handed other roles, either partially or in entirety) succeeds, and the class-mobility required for the system to be fundamentally fair disappears.
As a general rule, then, collectivist systems, when working as intended, are, in terms of quality of life, neither especially good, nor especially bad, for anyone at all, except for those who desire individuality. The problem arises, however, if a person under such a system believes that, being more able than others, they should be allowed the fruits of their ability, to use as they see fit - this can be the most disagreeable aspect of the system as intended. When corrupted, however, communism is a nightmare for all but those who happen to find themselves in charge, and a few lucky others that have the favour of those in charge.
Compared again to a free-market system, we see the main practical differences. Capitalism, working as intended, will have individuals enjoying quality of life proportional to their abilities (or at least, proportional to how valued their abilities are). Some will be grotesquely rich, most will be spread between "this is barely enough to keep me content" and "this is a bit more than I really need, but I've earned it", and those who are left will have nothing, assuming no mixed-economy support nets or private charities. The issue that can arise from this is that some people will have less than they need, or less than they think they need, while others have more. The (usually unjustified) feelings of inadequacy and injustice that this may inspire can be destructive. The larger problem, however, is that, in order to ascend Money Mountain, one must either have some funds to begin with, or be extraordinarily talented. The latter is rare, while the former means that the families of the total have-nots are destined to almost always remain have-nots. This can often be alleviated by having some mixed-elements in the economy, like public education services - it, at least in principle, allows those without resources to gain the skills to gain resources without expending resources. When corrupted, a capitalist system doesn't change much. The difference is that class-mobility is largely restricted to all but those at the very top. If the richest have their positions guaranteed, then they will remain the richest. The poorest will, due to the aforementioned difficulty of access to useful education or training, will usually remain the poorest. However, the poorer, the poor, the average, the rich, and the richer, can still generally move around. And even in a corrupt system, nobody is, at any one time, necessarily any worse off than they would be in the system working as intended. The concentration of wealth at the very highest echelon is more constant, but the distribution of wealth outside that is not likely to change, and so a rich man will be just as rich in a corrupt system as in a non-corrupt system.
Based on this alone, I feel that a capitalist system, working as intended, with some of the very basic public services (at the very least, basic infrastructure, and those things that allow the poorest to gain value, although perhaps extending to such things as cultural, artistic and recreational centres), should be the most workable, and the most desirable for the majority of people. It has an added benefit that, even if corrupted, the population will not be devastated.
"Collectivist systems like Socialism and Communism force all into uniform mediocrity. Even those who could be great will be treated as mediocre. Even those who are beneath mediocrity will be treated as mediocre. When corrupted, this system lets the privileged few live like kings, while their pets get a snack every now and then, and everyone else lives in uniform squalor."
Wow, nice void strawman there. Communism does not "force all into uniform mediocrity" that is absolute poppycock. By giving you the ability to actually have freedom and a valid alternative to many options without the need to oppress or be oppressed, ensuring that you are fed and able to live properly, you are then able to be free. No one will be treated mediocrely, that is not even a valid argument, a person will be a person and each person is bound to be different from others. It depends on what you mean by "great", if you consider owning a factory with slaves, then yes, that will not happen. But, if you consider "great" as being able to perform outstanding deeds and earn respect and a proper position as a human being as opposed to a machine, then obviously that person is able to be great at no expense on anyone else's part. When corrupted, EVERY system lets the privileged few live like kings.
In a communist society it would be less so, thanks to the people having control in their own arms. They will not accept, after a bloody revolution and countless years of strife to allow some individual to claim power and be a king. He'd be shot on day one, should he even garner any support at all in such as society. Anarcho-Capitalism, that system is bound to be corrupted and bound to degenerate into utter chaos, if it were even possible that is. Freedom of association and the freedom of contracts are ******** talk, the same ******** talk as Cappies speak of their perverted, twisted, and mangled version of "freedom". The only freedom they speak of is freedom to the bourgeois bosses to own certain slaves that they, to put it in your own words, " live like kings, while their pets get a snack every now and then, and everyone else lives in uniform squalor."
Mediocrity and uniformity are also empty rhetorics constantly spewed by Cappies and refuted. Unless you expect people to turn into programmable robots without the freedom to think on their own and the freedom to do what they wish, as limited by negative sanctions should they intrude on the rights of others or the community, then your talk of such things is void. Mediocrity and uniformity could be expected to take place in a place like the USSR or Mao China, yes, but those places were never communist.
"A system like capitalism allows all to vie for their place at the top of the heap, and tends to result with a few (the lucky, or the wise, or the immoral) having "an awful, awful lot" and the rest being spread out from "a fair bit, but nothing preposterous" to "next to nothing"."
Yes, Capitalism allows all to VIE to reach the top, but very few do. People tend to near the top when owning the means of production rather than toiling at a factory or slaving at Pizza Hut. No, it does not allow the rest to even take a sniff of proper life nor even a sight of the top. That can be highlighted from events all over the world ranging from starvation to being dirt poor. That is to say, as you seem to claim, that a minority owns while the majority lacks. Those who own are privileged and able to live fairly good, while the rest tend to constantly worry about the bills or the next day.
|Of course, those at the top of the heap don't want to come down, so they will try to manipulate the market (perfectly reasonable) or the government (that's breaking the rules) to keep them up there, and to keep others down. Capitalism allows any man who has greatness in him to be great, because his right to try is protected, and his motives are kept his own."
Yes, and it allows the rest to stay in a ditch because of economical or social reasons. Fun.
"When corrupted, the aforementioned manipulation of the government (a body which, generally speaking, should act primarily to enforce lawful contracts and protect people from coercion - though as the economy becomes more and more mixed, they are handed other roles, either partially or in entirety) succeeds, and the class-mobility required for the system to be fundamentally fair disappears."
Hopefully, you do realize that class mobility can move in an upward motion and a downward motion. Downward more so than upward it seems, bigger companies eating the smaller business, lack of employment, etc. etc. The system cannot be fair when the bourgeoisie and proletariat classes exist, that must be understood first and foremost. You do not seem to even understand the basics of the everyday relationship to claim that. Workers are not happy to bow down and forcefully work for a pathetic pay, be treated like dogs, unable to secure a future, and have the products of his labor taken from him on a constant basis.
"As a general rule, then, collectivist systems, when working as intended, are, in terms of quality of life, neither especially good, nor especially bad, for anyone at all, except for those who desire individuality. The problem arises, however, if a person under such a system believes that, being more able than others, they should be allowed the fruits of their ability, to use as they see fit - this can be the most disagreeable aspect of the system as intended. When corrupted, however, communism is a nightmare for all but those who happen to find themselves in charge, and a few lucky others that have the favour of those in charge."
Actually, communism when working as intended provides the utmost equality and better quality of life as compared to the current system and conditions that people face everyday in first world countries and third world countries be that on the aspect of starvation, lack of education, uncertain future, or others. The problem arises if a person under communism believe that he should be allowed to do what he wishes with the fruit of his labor? Are you kidding me? Is that even an argument? First of all, that individual X is free to keep what he produces, doing so without actually contributing in anyway to society would leave him without the resources produced by others to be only left with his own selfishly produced goods, and no one wants that but he is still freely and fully able to do so. Secondly, that person X is not the only one working in that factory, nor is he the only person working in the only factory. There are many workers and many factories at that, and the goods produced are not entirely his, unless he produces them all by himself.
When corrputed, every system, and I mean EVERY system is a nightmare. I though you didn't know enough about communism, let me reiterate:"When corrupted, however, communism is a nightmare for all but those who happen to find themselves in charge, and a few lucky others that have the favor of those in charge" communism involves no leaders, Socialism does. Communism is entirely based on worker organizations from the bottom-up (workers to delegates). Corruption, if it were to occur, would be in the form of a person Z attempting to take power. Person Z will not likely achieve power due to a) the people refusing to accept person Z's rise to power and a possible systematic reversion from communism, :cool.gif: the people would be armed to prevent such events from happening, c) he'd be ruling no one in a leaderless society. You must mistake communism for Socialism (USSR, China, Cuba, etc.), a common misconception.
"Compared again to a free-market system, we see the main practical differences. Capitalism, working as intended, will have individuals enjoying quality of life proportional to their abilities (or at least, proportional to how valued their abilities are). Some will be grotesquely rich, most will be spread between "this is barely enough to keep me content" and "this is a bit more than I really need, but I've earned it", and those who are left will have nothing, assuming no mixed-economy support nets or private charities."
Actually, Capitalism will have a minority of individuals working proportional to how much they leech, extort, and exploit and not to their abilities. If that were the case then a miner would equate Bill Gates.
"And those who are left will have nothing", that is the very thing we are trying to get rid of. The very disgusting abomination to haunt humanity: poverty, social and economical inequality. That is what needs to be leveled and changed, how can you claim "freedom" and "individual rights" when X can live in a villa while Y can't even buy food? When you speak of individualism and freedom, you do not speak of the starving and toiling people. Yes, sentimental, but that is the main incentive for my support of a communist society as opposed to the dog eat dog system of Capitalism. Those whom are left with nothing are actually the proletariat. They are the ones who are the producers and the hard working citizens, not the parasitical bourgeois. Do not be mistaken.
"The issue that can arise from this is that some people will have less than they need, or less than they think they need, while others have more. The (usually unjustified) feelings of inadequacy and injustice that this may inspire can be destructive. The larger problem, however, is that, in order to ascend Money Mountain, one must either have some funds to begin with, or be extraordinarily talented. The latter is rare, while the former means that the families of the total have-nots are destined to almost always remain have-nots."
Exactly my thoughts, no argument with that. That is why I am a communist and not a Capitalist, it is because I realize the atrocities being made and targeted at the "lesser" people of society and wish to put an end to it, not sooth it.
" This can often be alleviated by having some mixed-elements in the economy, like public education services - it, at least in principle, allows those without resources to gain the skills to gain resources without expending resources. "
Certain Anarcho-Capitalists do not support public schools and would prefer the privatization of these public sectors such as schools and fire departments and others. This can increase the quality of such services to a certain extent, but would prove to be of a very negative aspect when people are unable to subscribe to such services, as has happened multiple times with privatized fire departments during fires. Actually, those without resources tend to be very skilled, be them miners, lumberjacks, builders, metalworkers, etc.
"When corrupted, a capitalist system doesn't change much. The difference is that class-mobility is largely restricted to all but those at the very top. If the richest have their positions guaranteed, then they will remain the richest. The poorest will, due to the aforementioned difficulty of access to useful education or training, will usually remain the poorest. "
When corrupted a Capitalist system would turn the world into ****. Not even mentioning the corruption of an Anarcho-Capitalist society, that there in and of itself needs no forethought even. When a Capitalist system is corrupted, it is what you mentioned and more. Bribery, mafias, racketeering and money laundering would be commonplace in such a society. Not only that, but the a Capitalism gone "more" wrong, would increase the gap between classes and turn somewhat similar to that of the Industrial revolution era. Let us also note that Capitalism is an economical theory, that is to say corruption cannot actually "take place" unless we are going to include a state, the people, the bourgeois, the workers, and other such instances. Communism on the other hand can be subject to the talk of corruption since it is an economical and political/social theory, that is to say, that we can speak of a possible ruler-to-be and the people.
"However, the poorer, the poor, the average, the rich, and the richer, can still generally move around."
In very rare cases. A miner or a store clerk with a lousy pay cannot turn into a millionaire simply thanks to his pay. Not everyone lives in the USA nor works in a company with actual promotions and pay raises.
"And even in a corrupt system, nobody is, at any one time, necessarily any worse off than they would be in the system working as intended. The concentration of wealth at the very highest echelon is more constant, but the distribution of wealth outside that is not likely to change, and so a rich man will be just as rich in a corrupt system as in a non-corrupt system."
As explained previously: economical system, not a social/political system. Corruption, if it occurs with the existence of a state is very foreseeable how the rich can influence and manipulate the state in their favor at the expense of the environment and others. Did we even mention what would happen to the environment and the ecosystem should Capitalism go more wrong or corrupted? I do not even have to explain this, you are able to think of it.
Gonna actually explain why I'm wrong, rather than spew the same old rhetoric? Why should those who have be forced to lower themselves for the sake of those who don't have? Why should those who can't feed themselves (even when provided with a means to get, such as education and training), be fed? Why is everything but direct production "parasitic"? Profit gained through wit or the shrewdness is not earnt? The hands are worth more than the mind? Is it so? If so, why? If not, how else? Does man have a moral responsibility to help man? I would say yes, and, I assume, you would also say yes. Is not the point of responsibility that it's something which the individual must fulfill through virtue and a sense of duty? Can we force those who shirk their role in society to live the right way? Whether they are selfish but law-abiding in a capitalist society, or selfish but criminal in a communist society, they will not want to give, and if forced, will resent, and resist. Better to let them be.
And yes, not everyone lives in the U.S. A sign that you think so, for you to think I needed reminding.
Gonna actually explain why I'm wrong, rather than spew the same old rhetoric?
Thanks for ignoring and not replying to my post, but yes, I'll explain.
Why should those who have be forced to lower themselves for the sake of those who don't have?
Because those who have, do not have out of equality or fairness and instead depend on the work and labor of others to ensure their profits keep rolling in. Bourgeois-proletarian relationship, do I have to explain it?
Why should those who can't feed themselves (even when provided with a means to get, such as education and training), be fed?
Because those who are unable to feed themselves are not willingly starving themselves to death. They are unable because of economical and social imbalance where they are forced to spend their lives working for a pay that cannot actually ensure they get food, clothing, or even education at that. Education and training are not free either, a poor man cannot always find education and would instead be trained at other "lesser" manual jobs to make up for it. These lesser manual jobs tend to pay less.
Why is everything but direct production "parasitic"? Profit gained through wit or the shrewdness is not earnt?
Bourgeois-Proletarian relationship, need I keep on repeating this over and over? A bourgeois boss does not produce the goods he owns himself and thus resorts to hiring people for a pathetical wage to do his bidding and produce his goods for him. These workers strive and toil out of their own hands, time, and effort to produce these goods for countless hours and months till at the end, they have these goods taken from them only to be paid less than 1% or so of the profits made out of selling these goods while the bourgeois boss takes the full rest of the profits for his own, yet he did not do anything. He did not produce these goods, he did not transport the resources, nor did he even put any effort into the production of these goods. You will then claim that the bourgeois boss did in fact buy the resources necessary, but then I say, can't anyone else with the capabilities and ability do so given the proper economical condition? That is to say that a worker or even that group of workers are able to buy these resources themselves, they only need the money. When that money is provided and the workplace somehow "given" to the workers (since they would be unable to buy the factory or the company due to excruciating costs), they would then manage that factory themselves as in the autonomous workplaces in many countries such as that of Argentine.
The hands are worth more than the mind? Is it so? If so, why? If not, how else?
The mind is actually a wage-slave worker too: managers, heard of them? That mind can also be managed and maintained by the workers themselves through direct democracy of the workplace and the election of fully-recallable "delegates" or "managers".
Does man have a moral responsibility to help man? I would say yes, and, I assume, you would also say yes. Is not the point of responsibility that it's something which the individual must fulfill through virtue and a sense of duty?
Can we force those who shirk their role in society to live the right way?
Depends on what you mean by role, the "right way", and in which society. Very relative, please do explain and I will reply to this in full. If you mean forcing people to work then it is not necessary, just provide people with jobs. It is a rare occasion when anyone unable to sustain himself would desire to live on the streets, doing his "business" in public, lacking a roof over his head instead of a bridge, and not have a constant supply of food in the fridge, being able to have and sustain a family, watch TV, use the computer, etc. instead of working to own a minimum quality of life. Rarely anyone wants to be a hobo, everyone wants to reach the top. They either do not have the means to do so or are tumbled from the ladder by other competitors.
Whether they are selfish but law-abiding in a capitalist society, or selfish but criminal in a communist society, they will not want to give, and if forced, will resent, and resist. Better to let them be.
There would be no actual reason for many crimes to exist in a communist moneyless society. What your neighbor has, you can have, and what you do not have you can get freely on condition that you work to better the society by doing your part.
I hate when somebody takes me like a 8-yr. old blind brat. But I hate pro-communists more than ever. More than the american-Illuminati or the Freemasonry.
BE GONE
When somebody replies like that, does he expect a proper reply or to be taken seriously?
Don't play with the knives you can't handle.
Understood?
In other words, Trexmaster, you're saying: "I'm a dirty little troll, look at me! Hehehehehe! I want more attention! Gimme more, now!".
I mean, do you really think anyone is stupid enough not to realize how you blatantly just disregarded everything Tormented said, even though they were extremely valid points, and then just insulted him? Do you also not think the moderators will realize you are trolling?
But please, keep it up. I love it when people get banned. I think it's funny.
Mod edit: User was warned for this post. Please don't insult others n-n
But please, keep it up. I love it when people get banned. I think it's funny.
Sadistic monster!
Typical Commie slob. That's the whole point of Communism, really. To bring the high-rollers down so that you poor, lazy scumbags can feel better about yourselves. A depraved system it is.
But please, keep it up. I love it when people get banned. I think it's funny.
Sadistic monster!
Typical Commie slob. That's the whole point of Communism, really. To bring the high-rollers down so that you poor, lazy scumbags can feel better about yourselves. A depraved system it is.
.... I hope you jest.... because I honestly don't have it in me to argue away your ignorance, right now.
...Too tired.
Edit: BTW, I didn't know that U.S Communist propoganda was still propogating... interesting, indeed.
Not all capitalists treat their underlings like dirt. Look at Bill Gates.
"CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!" --Tzneetch in regards to a chess match against Creed.
I know, but I didn't want to seem biased.
That is why I showed the most apparent flaws in each system.
Like I said those are both over simplified but I think its pretty clear what the flaws are in both of them, at least form my point of view.
Human nature is very arguable when it is based off a system that breeds competition, hierarchy, and economical inequality since birth. You cannot speak of cooperation when the current generations are bred in a dog eats dog world of fierce competition on every scale. The system needs to be overhauled, generations to come need to be taught cooperation over competition to achieve mutual goals, that can only happen in a communist (or arguably too, a Socialist) system.
Yes I understand perfectly, the problem is you are mixing private property with government owned property (trying to differentiate it from public property). The correct way to define what you are attempting to say in that "anecdote" way would be:
You and other farmers grown turnips on a farm not owned by anyone, but entirely managed by the workers themselves. These workers grow 100 turnips in total, person A has is single and thus only needs 10 turnips, person B has 5 kids and a wife and thus will need 50 turnips, etc. It is not that you are "given" anything, it is what you take as you need, you will not take 50 turnips if you are single and give 10 turnips to a person with 6 mouths to feed. You have to also realize that food is not only limited to turnips, that there will be thousands of other types of food and farms. Not only that, but you seem to have removed any mention of technology where by peasants used to use plows to reap 5-6 bushels of wheat per day, yet today, we have the technology to reap thousands of bushels of wheat and thousands of other food types to feed the starving. So continuing with the story, person A(for argument's sake) will not see a reason why he has to have more than he needs as compared to person B who has many mouths to feed. That person A will not feel annoyed since what he is reaping is not for himself only, but to feed thousands, he will be able by contributing this small amount, to access the "communal storage" of that society and take what he needs as long as it is a reasonable diamond.
Hm, yes, very simplified. We are taking into consideration that person A (the better farmer) is a self-employed worker with no one already making his profits for him. That later changes and he hires person B to reap what he sows after putting him out of business and forced into selling his labor to another for a petty wage. What you have outlined there is the basics of worker exploitation and wage-slavery. You did not mention the wage being paid, whether person A still works on that farm or sits on his desk, what happened to person B financially and socially, what will the future of person B's children be, and you are feeding him yourself which is not always the case since person B is being paid and is expected to feed himself with that measly pay. Both farms prosper and you become wealthy at the expense of many lives or a person B's life in this case that is ruined, that is Capitalism basically, "Many die of starvation so a few can live in over consumption, that is the basis of Capitalism."
Sadly not everyone works for Bill Gates, but let's not take a specific case when we do not know the wages paid and benefits given to the workers.
Edit: I'll reply tomorrow.
Correct: people are greedy, arrogant, and needy, that is why we take to Capitalism
like a fish to water.
Now my post was short and to the point, and it is obvious that you read it, and it's also glaringly apparent that you are a staunch believer in socialism.
What is not clear is if you really understood what I was saying.
To clarify: Socialism is a great system; it promotes equality and fairness. The problem is that it is the very definition of the word "utopia": a place that can never be reached.
I know this is pessimistic and cynical, maybe even too much so, but people and socialism do not mix. You can obtain it in very small communities but even this will decay. As far as I have seen most major governments that have tried to sustain a socialist state have decayed rapidly into the same petty bureaucracies that they fought to exterminate.
Capitalism is far from ideal, but it is one of the few economic systems that has thrived throughout its conception.
It is the economic basis for many world powers, and as I put it in my "World economics for ages 4 and up" post: it may not be the most morally correct, it is far from the fairest, but it is well within reach and it is attainable.
I was willing to admit the flaws in the economic system of my preference, are you willing to do the same?
First of all, as I had said before, a person is not greedy by nature, but basically due to socialization. The implementation of the need to compete with others instead of cooperate with them is constantly shoved down that person's throat since a very young age. "Human nature is very arguable when it is based off a system that breeds competition, hierarchy, and economical inequality since birth. You cannot speak of cooperation when the current generations are bred in a dog eats dog world of fierce competition on every scale. The system needs to be overhauled, generations to come need to be taught cooperation over competition to achieve mutual goals, that can only happen in a communist (or arguably too, a Socialist) system."
I'm not a Socialist per se, and thus I can admit that it does and will have a hard time being applied. Socialism is merely a temporary transitional state to communism, that in certain aspects is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, whereby the suppression of the bourgeoisie would take place after which they would reach the final stage of Marx's: communism.
Socialism is not a permanent system, it should not be compared to Capitalism in my opinion. Socialism merely attempt to put a human face on Capitalism, it attempts to end or simply class conflict by taking power out of the hands of the bourgeoisie and giving it to the workers (how it is given really differs, some used Soviets, other used totalitarian government or dictatorships). That being said, Socialism is also constantly being tested: as you can see by the many different "types" of Socialism: that of the USSR, Cuba, China, etc.
Now as an Anarcho-Communist, I do not really support Socialism or a Worker's State to take power for 40+ years in the name of the workers. No, I believe that there must be a direct transition from the current system to communism. By direct transition I do not mean an over-night phenomenon and overhaul of a new system, of course not. By direct transition I mean the skipping of the transitional state in favor of workers' organization, expropriation, and complete workers' democracy similar to the Soviets. With that proper organization of society on a federal basis and fully in favor of the workers, we can then think of moving onto communism since we would have already formed what is necessary to achieve communism without having to go through with utilizing the "prime evil" in our favor. This is really besides the point though and I will stop here.
Capitalism is not ideal, just, nor even promotes equality as you have said yourself, and going on with this, we must not continue to allow it to exist. We cannot simply because of Capitalism's existence, deny other systems that are more just and equal simply because the former is already achieved. To give up hope on an alternative system simply by claiming that they cannot be achieved and justifying that claim by stating reasons of "human nature" (which is corrupted by Capitalism, competition instead of cooperation) and because it is attainable is reeking of the stench of misanthropist poppycock and is counter-productive at best.
To support Capitalism simply because it is attainable is also complete nonsense. Should we then support Monarchies, Feudalism, and others simply because they are attainable when we also recognize their atrocities, inequality, unfairness and many evils? Ergo, should we support Capitalism when we realize its atrocities, inequality, unfairness and the many evils it upholds simply because thinking otherwise is "Utopian" and because Capitalism is attainable? We cannot judge something never before achieved, such as communism, and claim that s it not workable since it has never been applied in history on a large-scale. You need to work for a better system, Lenin and others speak of Marxism as science and communism as very far from Utopian in the books.
"It is the economic basis for many world powers"
And it is the basis for many third-world countries and their poverty as well as the starving millions.
"I was willing to admit the flaws in the economic system of my preference, are you willing to do the same?"
Flaws in Socialism? yes, since a government is instated, it is easily corruptible and turned into a traitorous bureaucracy for the petty bourgeois to make millions off the back of others. Equality of wages is a problem too, need I speak of the old doctor and janitor analogy? Benefits and some extra privileges need to be given to the doctor. That or opportunities need to be made for the janitor at an early age to allow him to become a doctor of sorts since as is known, to become a doctor you will mainly need a privileged background and enough funding to go through with your studies (let us not speak of the very are and special cases, shall we?), which a normal worker does not have and is too busy trying to put food on the table then to actually care or be able to continue his studies.
1. Tormented - I agree with so much of what you're saying. You make me happy that FINALLY I know someone who sees Communism and Socialism the way I do. Even though you lean towards Anarchy-Communism, I have never really met anyone who truly understood the principles of Communism itself, and the way that humanity must be re-conditioned by future generations in order to fully accept them.
In fact, there are so many people I've talked to that deny Communism would ever work... I have actually doubted myself so many times and just thought I was crazy a few of those times...
I'm very glad to finally meet someone who understands the same political ideals. :smile.gif:
2. Whoever mentioned about Bill Gates not treating his workers terribly apparently knows absolutely nothing about Bill Gates. Not only does he treat people as idiots, he was actually known to do so on a regular basis simply because he did not like their ideas.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates ... ment_style
Well, that is why I did not really want to emphasize the arguments on Anarcho-Communism since we are speaking generally of Communism. Speaking of which, have you considered joining the Anarcho-Communists of Minecraft group? Yes, the name may seem very questionable and unappealing to you, but the "group" accepts Leftists (Socialists) of all kinds as long as they agree with the group (agreeing essentially with communism). Here you go, check it out if you want: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=11997
The group is based on communism, collectivism, and following "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (communal open storages), it is also leaderless and non-hierarchical, voting and decision-making is also made through Direct Democracy or Consensus Decision-Making.
If you look at any government on paper it looks great but in practice NO government can work when followed to the T.
Governments only work when there is a balance of power. the United states, while democratic and capitalist, has MANY socialist characteristics (ie: welfare, unemployment, disability and the currently debated Obamacare but that's for another thread) and a system of checks and balances. the U.S is also a Republic (democratic republic to be exact) which means while everyone has equal say in how the government is run, we elect people to represent us in those views.
the "perfect" government is a mixture of communism, democracy, capitalism, and socialism (yes communism and socialism go hand in hand but there are still differences) where while everyone is equal, there is room for improvement and advancement in the social and economic ladder.
Please don't advertise your views, this is a debate.
I'm not advertising my views, I'm merely redirecting a person to a clan that coincides with the communist ideology that he seems to uphold. I have also explained the fundamentals of the clan, as any other person would do which you seem to mistake for advertising my views. Oh and that post was not directed at you nor was it part of a debate to be "open" for external replies and thus: it is none of your business.
Actually, the "we own your ass and you can do nothing about it" is a Capitalist saying thanks to the bourgeois-worker relationship. Communism involves no leaders.
When somebody replies like that, does he expect a proper reply or to be taken seriously?
A system like capitalism allows all to vie for their place at the top of the heap, and tends to result with a few (the lucky, or the wise, or the immoral) having "an awful, awful lot" and the rest being spread out from "a fair bit, but nothing preposterous" to "next to nothing". Of course, those at the top of the heap don't want to come down, so they will try to manipulate the market (perfectly reasonable) or the government (that's breaking the rules) to keep them up there, and to keep others down. Capitalism allows any man who has greatness in him to be great, because his right to try is protected, and his motives are kept his own. When corrupted, the aforementioned manipulation of the government (a body which, generally speaking, should act primarily to enforce lawful contracts and protect people from coercion - though as the economy becomes more and more mixed, they are handed other roles, either partially or in entirety) succeeds, and the class-mobility required for the system to be fundamentally fair disappears.
As a general rule, then, collectivist systems, when working as intended, are, in terms of quality of life, neither especially good, nor especially bad, for anyone at all, except for those who desire individuality. The problem arises, however, if a person under such a system believes that, being more able than others, they should be allowed the fruits of their ability, to use as they see fit - this can be the most disagreeable aspect of the system as intended. When corrupted, however, communism is a nightmare for all but those who happen to find themselves in charge, and a few lucky others that have the favour of those in charge.
Compared again to a free-market system, we see the main practical differences. Capitalism, working as intended, will have individuals enjoying quality of life proportional to their abilities (or at least, proportional to how valued their abilities are). Some will be grotesquely rich, most will be spread between "this is barely enough to keep me content" and "this is a bit more than I really need, but I've earned it", and those who are left will have nothing, assuming no mixed-economy support nets or private charities. The issue that can arise from this is that some people will have less than they need, or less than they think they need, while others have more. The (usually unjustified) feelings of inadequacy and injustice that this may inspire can be destructive. The larger problem, however, is that, in order to ascend Money Mountain, one must either have some funds to begin with, or be extraordinarily talented. The latter is rare, while the former means that the families of the total have-nots are destined to almost always remain have-nots. This can often be alleviated by having some mixed-elements in the economy, like public education services - it, at least in principle, allows those without resources to gain the skills to gain resources without expending resources. When corrupted, a capitalist system doesn't change much. The difference is that class-mobility is largely restricted to all but those at the very top. If the richest have their positions guaranteed, then they will remain the richest. The poorest will, due to the aforementioned difficulty of access to useful education or training, will usually remain the poorest. However, the poorer, the poor, the average, the rich, and the richer, can still generally move around. And even in a corrupt system, nobody is, at any one time, necessarily any worse off than they would be in the system working as intended. The concentration of wealth at the very highest echelon is more constant, but the distribution of wealth outside that is not likely to change, and so a rich man will be just as rich in a corrupt system as in a non-corrupt system.
Based on this alone, I feel that a capitalist system, working as intended, with some of the very basic public services (at the very least, basic infrastructure, and those things that allow the poorest to gain value, although perhaps extending to such things as cultural, artistic and recreational centres), should be the most workable, and the most desirable for the majority of people. It has an added benefit that, even if corrupted, the population will not be devastated.
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/
http://www.strike-the-root.com/
http://mises.org/
Wow, nice void strawman there. Communism does not "force all into uniform mediocrity" that is absolute poppycock. By giving you the ability to actually have freedom and a valid alternative to many options without the need to oppress or be oppressed, ensuring that you are fed and able to live properly, you are then able to be free. No one will be treated mediocrely, that is not even a valid argument, a person will be a person and each person is bound to be different from others. It depends on what you mean by "great", if you consider owning a factory with slaves, then yes, that will not happen. But, if you consider "great" as being able to perform outstanding deeds and earn respect and a proper position as a human being as opposed to a machine, then obviously that person is able to be great at no expense on anyone else's part. When corrupted, EVERY system lets the privileged few live like kings.
In a communist society it would be less so, thanks to the people having control in their own arms. They will not accept, after a bloody revolution and countless years of strife to allow some individual to claim power and be a king. He'd be shot on day one, should he even garner any support at all in such as society. Anarcho-Capitalism, that system is bound to be corrupted and bound to degenerate into utter chaos, if it were even possible that is. Freedom of association and the freedom of contracts are ******** talk, the same ******** talk as Cappies speak of their perverted, twisted, and mangled version of "freedom". The only freedom they speak of is freedom to the bourgeois bosses to own certain slaves that they, to put it in your own words, " live like kings, while their pets get a snack every now and then, and everyone else lives in uniform squalor."
Mediocrity and uniformity are also empty rhetorics constantly spewed by Cappies and refuted. Unless you expect people to turn into programmable robots without the freedom to think on their own and the freedom to do what they wish, as limited by negative sanctions should they intrude on the rights of others or the community, then your talk of such things is void. Mediocrity and uniformity could be expected to take place in a place like the USSR or Mao China, yes, but those places were never communist.
Yes, Capitalism allows all to VIE to reach the top, but very few do. People tend to near the top when owning the means of production rather than toiling at a factory or slaving at Pizza Hut. No, it does not allow the rest to even take a sniff of proper life nor even a sight of the top. That can be highlighted from events all over the world ranging from starvation to being dirt poor. That is to say, as you seem to claim, that a minority owns while the majority lacks. Those who own are privileged and able to live fairly good, while the rest tend to constantly worry about the bills or the next day.
|Of course, those at the top of the heap don't want to come down, so they will try to manipulate the market (perfectly reasonable) or the government (that's breaking the rules) to keep them up there, and to keep others down. Capitalism allows any man who has greatness in him to be great, because his right to try is protected, and his motives are kept his own."
Yes, and it allows the rest to stay in a ditch because of economical or social reasons. Fun.
Hopefully, you do realize that class mobility can move in an upward motion and a downward motion. Downward more so than upward it seems, bigger companies eating the smaller business, lack of employment, etc. etc. The system cannot be fair when the bourgeoisie and proletariat classes exist, that must be understood first and foremost. You do not seem to even understand the basics of the everyday relationship to claim that. Workers are not happy to bow down and forcefully work for a pathetic pay, be treated like dogs, unable to secure a future, and have the products of his labor taken from him on a constant basis.
Actually, communism when working as intended provides the utmost equality and better quality of life as compared to the current system and conditions that people face everyday in first world countries and third world countries be that on the aspect of starvation, lack of education, uncertain future, or others. The problem arises if a person under communism believe that he should be allowed to do what he wishes with the fruit of his labor? Are you kidding me? Is that even an argument? First of all, that individual X is free to keep what he produces, doing so without actually contributing in anyway to society would leave him without the resources produced by others to be only left with his own selfishly produced goods, and no one wants that but he is still freely and fully able to do so. Secondly, that person X is not the only one working in that factory, nor is he the only person working in the only factory. There are many workers and many factories at that, and the goods produced are not entirely his, unless he produces them all by himself.
When corrputed, every system, and I mean EVERY system is a nightmare. I though you didn't know enough about communism, let me reiterate:"When corrupted, however, communism is a nightmare for all but those who happen to find themselves in charge, and a few lucky others that have the favor of those in charge" communism involves no leaders, Socialism does. Communism is entirely based on worker organizations from the bottom-up (workers to delegates). Corruption, if it were to occur, would be in the form of a person Z attempting to take power. Person Z will not likely achieve power due to a) the people refusing to accept person Z's rise to power and a possible systematic reversion from communism, :cool.gif: the people would be armed to prevent such events from happening, c) he'd be ruling no one in a leaderless society. You must mistake communism for Socialism (USSR, China, Cuba, etc.), a common misconception.
Actually, Capitalism will have a minority of individuals working proportional to how much they leech, extort, and exploit and not to their abilities. If that were the case then a miner would equate Bill Gates.
"And those who are left will have nothing", that is the very thing we are trying to get rid of. The very disgusting abomination to haunt humanity: poverty, social and economical inequality. That is what needs to be leveled and changed, how can you claim "freedom" and "individual rights" when X can live in a villa while Y can't even buy food? When you speak of individualism and freedom, you do not speak of the starving and toiling people. Yes, sentimental, but that is the main incentive for my support of a communist society as opposed to the dog eat dog system of Capitalism. Those whom are left with nothing are actually the proletariat. They are the ones who are the producers and the hard working citizens, not the parasitical bourgeois. Do not be mistaken.
Exactly my thoughts, no argument with that. That is why I am a communist and not a Capitalist, it is because I realize the atrocities being made and targeted at the "lesser" people of society and wish to put an end to it, not sooth it.
Certain Anarcho-Capitalists do not support public schools and would prefer the privatization of these public sectors such as schools and fire departments and others. This can increase the quality of such services to a certain extent, but would prove to be of a very negative aspect when people are unable to subscribe to such services, as has happened multiple times with privatized fire departments during fires. Actually, those without resources tend to be very skilled, be them miners, lumberjacks, builders, metalworkers, etc.
When corrupted a Capitalist system would turn the world into ****. Not even mentioning the corruption of an Anarcho-Capitalist society, that there in and of itself needs no forethought even. When a Capitalist system is corrupted, it is what you mentioned and more. Bribery, mafias, racketeering and money laundering would be commonplace in such a society. Not only that, but the a Capitalism gone "more" wrong, would increase the gap between classes and turn somewhat similar to that of the Industrial revolution era. Let us also note that Capitalism is an economical theory, that is to say corruption cannot actually "take place" unless we are going to include a state, the people, the bourgeois, the workers, and other such instances. Communism on the other hand can be subject to the talk of corruption since it is an economical and political/social theory, that is to say, that we can speak of a possible ruler-to-be and the people.
In very rare cases. A miner or a store clerk with a lousy pay cannot turn into a millionaire simply thanks to his pay. Not everyone lives in the USA nor works in a company with actual promotions and pay raises.
As explained previously: economical system, not a social/political system. Corruption, if it occurs with the existence of a state is very foreseeable how the rich can influence and manipulate the state in their favor at the expense of the environment and others. Did we even mention what would happen to the environment and the ecosystem should Capitalism go more wrong or corrupted? I do not even have to explain this, you are able to think of it.
And yes, not everyone lives in the U.S. A sign that you think so, for you to think I needed reminding.
Thanks for ignoring and not replying to my post, but yes, I'll explain.
Because those who have, do not have out of equality or fairness and instead depend on the work and labor of others to ensure their profits keep rolling in. Bourgeois-proletarian relationship, do I have to explain it?
Because those who are unable to feed themselves are not willingly starving themselves to death. They are unable because of economical and social imbalance where they are forced to spend their lives working for a pay that cannot actually ensure they get food, clothing, or even education at that. Education and training are not free either, a poor man cannot always find education and would instead be trained at other "lesser" manual jobs to make up for it. These lesser manual jobs tend to pay less.
Bourgeois-Proletarian relationship, need I keep on repeating this over and over? A bourgeois boss does not produce the goods he owns himself and thus resorts to hiring people for a pathetical wage to do his bidding and produce his goods for him. These workers strive and toil out of their own hands, time, and effort to produce these goods for countless hours and months till at the end, they have these goods taken from them only to be paid less than 1% or so of the profits made out of selling these goods while the bourgeois boss takes the full rest of the profits for his own, yet he did not do anything. He did not produce these goods, he did not transport the resources, nor did he even put any effort into the production of these goods. You will then claim that the bourgeois boss did in fact buy the resources necessary, but then I say, can't anyone else with the capabilities and ability do so given the proper economical condition? That is to say that a worker or even that group of workers are able to buy these resources themselves, they only need the money. When that money is provided and the workplace somehow "given" to the workers (since they would be unable to buy the factory or the company due to excruciating costs), they would then manage that factory themselves as in the autonomous workplaces in many countries such as that of Argentine.
The mind is actually a wage-slave worker too: managers, heard of them? That mind can also be managed and maintained by the workers themselves through direct democracy of the workplace and the election of fully-recallable "delegates" or "managers".
Other post on other thread, read it: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=263211&p=3772185#p3772185
Depends on what you mean by role, the "right way", and in which society. Very relative, please do explain and I will reply to this in full. If you mean forcing people to work then it is not necessary, just provide people with jobs. It is a rare occasion when anyone unable to sustain himself would desire to live on the streets, doing his "business" in public, lacking a roof over his head instead of a bridge, and not have a constant supply of food in the fridge, being able to have and sustain a family, watch TV, use the computer, etc. instead of working to own a minimum quality of life. Rarely anyone wants to be a hobo, everyone wants to reach the top. They either do not have the means to do so or are tumbled from the ladder by other competitors.
There would be no actual reason for many crimes to exist in a communist moneyless society. What your neighbor has, you can have, and what you do not have you can get freely on condition that you work to better the society by doing your part.
In other words, Trexmaster, you're saying: "I'm a dirty little troll, look at me! Hehehehehe! I want more attention! Gimme more, now!".
I mean, do you really think anyone is stupid enough not to realize how you blatantly just disregarded everything Tormented said, even though they were extremely valid points, and then just insulted him? Do you also not think the moderators will realize you are trolling?
But please, keep it up. I love it when people get banned. I think it's funny.
Mod edit: User was warned for this post. Please don't insult others n-n
Sadistic monster!
Typical Commie slob. That's the whole point of Communism, really. To bring the high-rollers down so that you poor, lazy scumbags can feel better about yourselves. A depraved system it is.
.... I hope you jest.... because I honestly don't have it in me to argue away your ignorance, right now.
...Too tired.
Edit: BTW, I didn't know that U.S Communist propoganda was still propogating... interesting, indeed.