Hitler and Bush...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by monkspider
What if this our purpose in this world is not owning the most possessions, but living in cooperation with all others? Certainly you would agree that capitalism is quite impractical for these ideals?

Yes, it is impractical for those ideals, but you assume that the goal of existence, our "purpose," is to live in cooperation and equality with others. I reject this notion, and I would instead propose that the purpose of a human being is to realize and be realized by others for reaching his vast potential as an individual.

[monkspider]

I thought you might say that .

You know me too well.

It's done more than survived. It has obviously succeeded! The per capita income in this world is many, many, many (100s) of times what it was in 1800. That indicates success. The countries that have embraced capitalism have very good standards of living. Technology has exploded because of it. The world is richer and closer because of the success of capitalism.

Perhaps by some standards we are more wealthy, and rest assured, capitalism has brought us much progress than many other systems that mankind has created (feudalism, theocracy, and so on). But what is it that we call wealth? In reality, it is what makes us impoverished. True poverty, poverty of the spirit, to be wrapped up in greed and in one's possesions is the greatest poverty that one can inherit. So to that degree, capitalism's wealth that it has brought us is very limited.

Has capitalism brought the suffering or was it already here? The latter is the correct answer. People who live under capitalism are much better than when those people did not live under the system. The poor are on much better grounds, and the entire society is richer and more successful.

Capitalism is by no means the originator of suffering, mankind has been doing quite well to inflict suffering upon one another well before the days of Adam Smith. Is capitalism better in relativism to other systems that mankind has tried? Absolutely. But regardless, any system in which so many suffer could never be considered even the smallest of successes any means.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What if this our purpose in this world is not owning the most possessions, but living in cooperation with all others?

Your opinion on what our 'purpose' is, is simply irrelevant to me... because I don't agree with your purpose in the slightest.

All I ask of you is this, is fundamentalism the best government in our world because one would consider it the best government in Civ 2? If you don't think it is, then you will find that you and I are ultimately in agreement.

Are you David Kucinek, or whoever that wacko running for President is? Simply: WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! What does the best government in Civ2 (which, btw, I think is Democracy) have to do with anything?!

[Giancarlo]

In conclusion out of all my posts I will make this statement. Communism sounds nice on paper. So does the PRC's Airforce. More like poor or unserviceable in reality. Capitalism is truly the only system that will survive and win. It encourages development, advancement and greater improvement in our lives. We should endorse this system.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Fez


All systems have faults in them. It is just that capitalism has the least. Competition is the way it should be. I am a very competitive person. I mean no offense but competition attains cooperation. So your view is slightly skewed in my honest opinion on how the reality is.

If there can be a large middle class, some upper class and a small lower class in every nation.. I would be more than happy. That is called capitalism. It works.

Good, you acknowledge that capitalism has faults. I have no need to worry about you then Fezzie Wezzie. Competetition can bring cooperation in an abstract sense, for example, mankind's competetition in capitalism has brought some progress, especially compared to feudalism. But ulitmately it cannot provide the cooperation that true cooperation can. Let me ask you this now, if there were a society could bring a higher standard of living for all, even wealthy capitalists like yourself, naturally you would embrace this society, correct?

[Sava]

IMO, for Communism to succeed, human culture itself would have to change. And here's why:

I like stuff. I like my computer, I like my car, I like my TV, I like movies. The reason these things exist as we know them, is because money exists. Somebody said, "I will make this computer, not because I want one, but because other people will give me money for them. And with that money, I can buy what I want!" Sure, materialism may be shallow. But it's fun. The only way Communism will exist, is if technology allows a near unlimited manufacturing capability, with almost zero effort. In essence, Communism can only exist if people can have what they want. And the free-market is the best way to determine demand for the things we want.

So Communism will exist in one of two ways:

1. People will stop liking stuff (highly unlikely)
2. We can make anything we want (again, unlikely, but who knows what the future holds?)

So my suggestion to Commies: invent replicators as seen in Star Trek, and pass them out to everyone... and you will have a completely non-violent revolution. Money will disappear, poverty will disapper. boom... there's your Utopia. All you will have to do then is stop people from killing each other and you're set.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by monkspider


Good, you acknowledge that capitalism has faults. I have no need to worry about you then Fezzie Wezzie.

Very few for that matter whereas communism has many. Communism itself is based on contradictions.

Competetition can bring cooperation in an abstract sense, for example, mankind's competetition in capitalism has brought some progress, especially compared to feudalism.

It has brought tons of progress.. and this undeniable. What is it your typing on there? A keyboard? Where is that connected to? A computer? What invented these things? Capitalism.

But ulitmately it cannot provide the cooperation that true cooperation can.

"It depends on what the mean of 'is' is" - Bill Clinton

You are evading the reality with a slur of words. You make a good public speaker.

But true cooperation is true capitalism.

Let me ask you this now, if there were a society could bring a higher standard of living for all, even wealthy capitalists like yourself, naturally you would embrace this society, correct?

There can't be a higher standard of living for all. There always has to be somebody above you and somebody below you. It is called competition. If you don't have this, you don't have a system.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Your opinion on what our 'purpose' is, is simply irrelevant to me... because I don't agree with your purpose in the slightest.

Fair enough, fair enough, don't worry about it.

Are you David Kucinek, or whoever that wacko running for President is? Simply: WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! What does the best government in Civ2 (which, btw, I think is Democracy) have to do with anything?!

It has much in common with the discussion you and I are having now. Can I safely assume that you would agree, someone thinking that fundamentalism was the government in Civ 2 doesn't translate to it being the best government in our world. After all, Civ 2 is just a petty videogame, right? No relevence to the real world.

[Cyclotron]

Fine, ignore me then, you bastards.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Sava
So Communism will exist in one of two ways:

1. People will stop liking stuff (highly unlikely)
2. We can make anything we want (again, unlikely, but who knows what the future holds?)

Not so sure about 2, but like you said, who knows? You are mostly right on about 1. People will not completely stop wanting things, though perhaps they will for all intents and purposes, they will just realize that helping others is more important than owning that second big screen TV.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But what is it that we call wealth? In reality, it is what makes us impoverished. True poverty, poverty of the spirit, to be wrapped up in greed and in one's possesions is the greatest poverty that one can inherit.

Totally disagree. What we call wealth is what makes us rich, rich in actuality and rich in spirit. Our greed and poverty make the world better for all. Create new marvals that improve the lives of everyone. Most poor use washing machines and watch TV. Their lives are enhanced by the greedy.

But regardless, any system in which so many suffer could never be considered even the smallest of successes any means.

BULL... a system which has shown more progress than any other system mankind has created is definetly a success.

if there were a society could bring a higher standard of living for all, even wealthy capitalists like yourself, naturally you would embrace this society, correct

The only problem is communism will NEVER be that society . Like Winston Churchill said, communism is about equality... equality of misery.

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by JCG
What I can't understand about his theories (and those of other Marxists) is how exactly did he expect the leadership of the revolution (AKA the dictatorship of the proletariat) to simply fade away and open the way to "true" communism and equality....or did he even consider that at all?

Oh and....please wake me up when the revolution knocks at my door.

Good point.

In his Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote very little about this... Mostly assumtions of an utopian classless society where the people "ran themselves".

Lenin, however, had more depth theories on leadership of the revolution itself, and the 'aftermath phase'. (for using a term from the hysterically fun boardgame, Junta) The party 'cadres' should organize within a party, and Lenin descibed the properties of a party, functions, etc. Anyway, a party should lead the masses to success, he meant. That involved using force against all opposition... A party-dictatorship. Lenin assumed the 'party-dictatorship' would seize power by revolution, but cede control gradually some time afterwards. He never got the opportunity to see that fail. Instead, many people got the opportunity to see him dead.

So I guess communism is both Leninism (which is an authocratic leadership by a party) and Marxism (which is an utopia of a society no one has ever seen)


Speaking of that 'aftermath' part, Stalin succeeded to implement many of Lenins ideas so they actually worked and the classes dissappeared. However, after killing some millions defenseless people and forcing labour. As if that was not enough, he started to scare US-officials with hostile diplomacy, and thus the cold war started. US-officials got totally paranoid, and escalated the cold war even more. The rest of the story is pretty much propaganda on both sides...

Ok, did anyone feel more enlightened now?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It has much in common with the discussion you and I are having now.

It has nothing in common.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by monkspider
they will just realize that helping others is more important than owning that second big screen TV.

Communism doesn't mean helping others. It means imprisionment.

Capitalism means helping others. It means freedom and liberation for all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fine, ignore me then, you bastards.

That's because you are right .