Off Game answer from Pandemoniak to Bloody Baro - aka another arguing about Marx...

[Darkness' Edge]

Banana.

I don't see the point of this discussion being here, as it's not related to AC or the Democracy Game - doesn't this belong in OT?

[The Bloody Baro]

Maybe in some different time, place, and lifetime the Marxist theories will be put into use how Marx intended them. I'm now longer going to comment on issue. I beleive that right now it is my duty to the P4 to not start a fight between parties. I am sorry if I have offended you in any way.

[Voltaire]

I find this discussion rather interesting, though my stance on the issue is that both capitalism and communism are ultimately flawed.

Communism, as Marx said “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, attempts to move towards equality or at least equal opportunity. I find this to be rather too idealistic, seeing as humans by nature are made unequal, therefore it is vain to treat them as if they were equal. Also the goal of equal opportunity fails due to the same reasons; there will always be those who are more skilled than others due to biological factors even if all social factors are taken out of the equation.

In capitalism on the other hand a persons worth to society is measured by their wealth, rather than their wealth being measured by their worth to society. As well as the fact that profit is put above all else, even that sacrifices in quality of a product are made for profit. The claim that people wouldn’t buy a product that isn’t of the best quality and therefore the corporations are forced to make the best quality products is flawed. So long as people are willing to buy crap, it is profitable to dispense it.

A meritocratic system IMO is the most logical way to proceed; a system where advancement is based on personal achievement and ability, as well as contribution to society; thus the greater your contribution to society the better your living standards. This does create inequality based on the lines of ability. Nevertheless to even the playing field all socio-economic inequalities should be eliminated and equal opportunity should be provided for to the best of a society’s ability. In such a system people are encouraged to do their best, and to contribute to society due to the fact that they are rewarded for it.

That’s just my two-cents.

[The Bloody Baro]

SORRY! Jese I should have listened to TKG. Never provoke the wrath of a Bannana loving MARXIST. There I said your a MARXIST not a COMMUNIST. Yes, you do have some good points and Marx is one of the smartest people in history. But for this world Democracy/Socialism is the best way to govern. I support free medical care aid, to other poorer nations[execpt Iran, Iraq, etc.], Poor houses, soup kitchens, etc. Do I like what goes on in the world? No. But the best way to correct it is to have the rich HELP the poor instead of having EVERYONE be dragged down in to the poor class.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by M@ni@c
I voted a banana is a banana anyway.

Why does a poll has to be attached to this thread??

Bananas just calmed me

I must say I don't really agree with Bloody Baron's reasons for being anti-communist. I base my anti-communism more on economic grounds as I firmly believe in the system of competition and the following evolution to the better. One monolithic state can't ensure the competition needed to shift the bad ideas from the good. Many corporations can do that, steered of course by government rules to protect the environment and the people to a certain degree.

M@ni@c, you missed my point : the goal of marxist theory is to suppress state, communism as it was in the USSR was only a step. It failed because of what Bakounine noticed. And i agree with you about competition, with one restriction that you probably agree with, despite you didnt quote it : no competition should have the power to let someone die or to kill someone. Copyrights on huma genome or on medicine is killing people. 33% of africa is dying of AIDS because they dont have (and cant afford) the copyright on tritherapy.

Under a communist system technology wouldn't have evolved this far thus there wouldn't be enough production to provide everyone with food shelter health care... We would on most fields stay stuck at early 20th century technology.

Histroy of Space run doesnt agree with your remark. Even if America hired nazis scientists, they were technologically advancing as fast as USSR.

I do agree with you on stockbrokers. Their only use is to transfer money to the "good" corporations, and fasten the evolution towards the better. Computers might be able to do that better in a few years.

Sorry, to stay bitter, but it is true that a computer is more efficient to kill people by stockbroking.

[Maniac]

I voted a banana is a banana anyway.

Why does a poll has to be attached to this thread??

I must say I don't really agree with Bloody Baron's reasons for being anti-communist. I base my anti-communism more on economic grounds as I firmly believe in the system of competition and the following evolution to the better. One monolithic state can't ensure the competition needed to shift the bad ideas from the good. Many corporations can do that, steered of course by government rules to protect the environment and the people to a certain degree.

With today's production (and Marx knew it would be like it, thats all his point about globalization), we ARE able to provide EVERYONE with food, home where to sleep safely, health care, communications, books, culture, computers, etc...

Under a communist system technology wouldn't have evolved this far thus there wouldn't be enough production to provide everyone with food shelter health care... We would on most fields stay stuck at early 20th century technology.

I do agree with you on stockbrokers. Their only use is to transfer money to the "good" corporations, and fasten the evolution towards the better. Computers might be able to do that better in a few years.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by The Bloody Baro
Your a communist right PAndemoniak?

No, I am Marxist, and actually I only believe in Marx's economical theories, not his political theory of the proletarian revolution, since as Mikael Bakounine noticed in 1871, one man can stand and claim this revolution as his revolution, and rule the whole state. I totally agree with Marx for his attempt to suppress the notion of state, as his final goal. The proletarian revolution is just one way to suppress state, that I dont find viable because its a revolution (meaning you turn things up side down, but the problem remains) and I prefer evolution.
I am actually more an anarchist, I belive hierarchy is something bad to mankind.

Well Communism is immorale because it is innatural.

So according to what you say, what is moral is what is natural, and what is immorale is what is innatural ? I have to totally disagree with that. Having sex with your children, for example, which is a thing normal for animals in nature, is something immorale to me. As a matter of fact, Marx -duh, him again -noticed that the difference between mankind and animalkind was that mankind produce itself their existential mode : ie building roads to go faster, building hospitals to cure sickness, creating weapons to back one's words, etc... And therefore, what is morale is what is in agreement with mankind physiological, socioligical, etc... facts.
Meaning it is immorale to kill someone, since it is against man physiology which makes all the best to survive.

From the begining of time ones needs and will to survive surpass everything else. Communism asks people to give up their hard earned wages and labor for some one who is to lazy to do it themselves. Do think Bill Gates would have earned all of that money for someone else?

No they dont. Communalism( you noticed I am not speaking about Communism, since it is a total nonsense to speak of political philosophies and talk about communism, this words refers to nothing)(Communalism is a theory invented by Aristotle, btw) makes a very clear point : you gather the production and distribute it according to everyone's needs. Meaning its useless to be able to buy 1,000,000 chickens for dinner (like Bill Gates) when you can barely eat one and that 36,000 persons die from starving every day.
With today's production (and Marx knew it would be like it, thats all his point about globalization), we ARE able to provide EVERYONE with food, home where to sleep safely, health care, communications, books, culture, computers, etc...
Oh, and by the way, I dont consider someone who is only making money by stock exchanges as someone who "labors hard", neither can I say or let say that he has "hard earned wages". Who earns the more, between a miner and a golden boy ? Who deserves to be best paid ?

Capitalism allows people the OPPORTUNITY to succede.

Oh, sure.
Just try to explain that to a child dying in south america.
CAPITALIST : "But, you see kid, there was this volcano, and this plague, and this civil war, and we capitalist could have helped you by sending you engineers, medecine and not starting your civil war, but you gotta understand : capitalism gave you the opportunity to succede."
and the kid die
CAPITALIST : "You're just a damn communist anyway"

Unlike Communism which keeps everyone "in their place." Who among you and your party would give up everything they own for some one you don't even know.

See above.

I am not saying that I do not give charity. As a matter of fact I have 3 garbage bags full of clothes that I amgoing to give ,that I could have sold to make a profit, to the Salvation Army. But to ask someone to giveup everything is just wrong.

Oh, very nice of you ! But just check WHO made this clothes.
Wasnt it some 6 years old vietnamese children ? You re so good to provide them a job.