prove to me that communism isn't immoral as heck

[Agathon]

Originally posted by yavoon

new zealand is a sweet place. I'd love to live there someday. no jobs though.

Partly, although not wholly (I'm not a complete dogmatist) due to the unthinking nature of the market reforms.

I mean, those idiots just did everything from ideology, there was no real thought given to pragmatics.

Anyway, if the dollar stays low, why not retire there?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Verto


How dare the people of America wish to pass on their lifelong work to their children!

They can do it, but not too much.
Little children has to learn that he needs to work in his life. Knowing that you are one day without money to support your Lifestyle, if you don´t work might be a big incentive

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by yavoon
consumerism. and obviously we don't "need" any cars. we could all walk around in jungles picking berries. what good is it to demand a person can only buy what they need(communism reference)? I don't think ppl would appreciate that.

I was not talking about consumerism, and go lightly on them phallacies, okay?

What I was saying is, whenever there is a market with more than one vendor supplying it, the total amount of goods produced will inevitably exceed the need. Unless, of course, when you have a cartel.

[Curiosity]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by SKILORD
Lasseiz Faire Capitalism is the only system I know of where there are no entrenched figures with sufficient authority to stagnate progress [quote]

Untrue, in that once an individual or corporaton has acquired sufficient capital they can easiy maipulate the market to their ends. Microsoft, for example. That's why there is no such thing as laissez-faire capitalism in develped countries. We make countless laws to reign in the power of corporations.

you agree with me, though you do not realise it yet.

You'll notice I'm arguing both sides of the issue in this thread.

What I mostly disagree with is the idea that one ideology has all the answers. There are plainly advantages and disadvantages to both sides, and blindly arguing for one or the other disguises the complexity of the situation.

So far I don't believe that anyone has designed an optimal system.

[SlowwHand]

I knew this, then forgot.


With the breakup of the USSR, what is the "main" Communist country?
China.

In China, what percentage are Communists?
5%.




Communism is dead.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SKILORD
So your support of Communism is based upon your support of the ideal that, if I understand correctly, Your values are the highest and they should be enforced on others through violent revolution.

Why not? The values which you hold dear were imposed by force and maintained by force. So get of your moral high horse. But this is a strawman from my argument, which is that capitalism is inefficient.

By alternate point of view you are, of course, referring to the wanton slaughter of the burgoise.

Where have I ever called for anyone to be slaughtered, let alone watonly? While some communists do, not the ones you'll have to deal, as long as you stay out of the Third World. Besides, much of the knowledge we need for running society is locked up in the brains of the bourgeoisie. Killing them would be counter-productive (and has proven to be so everywhere it has occured).

Of course, we'd be stupid if we let the boureoisie have complete freedom, since history shows us that when the commnuists have been lenient, the former rulers have done everything in their power to overthrow the revolution, leading to very bloody civil wars and the degeneration of the revolution (which led to the rise of Stalin).

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by SKILORD
So your support of Communism is based upon your support of the ideal that, if I understand correctly, Your values are the highest and they should be enforced on others through violent revolution.

Why not? The values which you hold dear were imposed by force and maintained by force. So get of your moral high horse. But this is a strawman from my argument, which is that capitalism is inefficient.

capitalism is an SUV w/ a jet engine strapped on top. communism is a geo metro w/ handles for easier pushing.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I was not talking about consumerism, and go lightly on them phallacies, okay?

What I was saying is, whenever there is a market with more than one vendor supplying it, the total amount of goods produced will inevitably exceed the need. Unless, of course, when you have a cartel.

not by any substantial margin. I assume u mean "fighting for market share" leads to one side winning somewhat and the others loosing somewhat. but overall no1 can continue to overproduce, because that loses money. corporations don't like losing money.

night try at slighting me w/ the first sentence=D

[SKILORD]

But here is one thing where our POVs differ:
You seem to value property very much and therefore also the freedom of giving this property away at will, be it the Offspring or be it poorer people.

I on the other hand rather think of wealth as being a reward for your own work.

Rather our points of view differ only as far as you think they differ: I agree, wealth is a reward for a job well done. And if you want your reward to be the knowledge that your descendants are cared for then that shall be your reward, and it is noone's right to say that they cannot do as they will with the money which even you admit they earned.

You state that the parents could also give the money away to the poor. But I disagree, as I think that this very very rarely hapens and the Property of the Parents is most of the times left to their Offsprings (and therefore could promote them in becoming decadent people who do no realy work and rather soend most of the time in their lifes partying.

You say not that it is impossible for the parents to give the money to someone other than their offspring, but rather that it is uncommon. What's more, the problems of the offspring are not ours to discuss. I will not judge their souls.

That's why there is no such thing as laissez-faire capitalism in develped countries.

America until the Civil War was lassaiz faire. Afterwards monopolies began to spread as the government started to interfere with the economy. (Intercontinental RailRoad)

Why not? The values which you hold dear were imposed by force and maintained by force. So get of your moral high horse. But this is a strawman from my argument, which is that capitalism is inefficient.

My values aren't maintained by force. I'm sure that this mysterious 'force' of yours wouldn't want an Anarchist running about. I found my own values and I maintain them. I don't see anyone forcing the ineffeciencies you speak so haughtily of down our throat.

Of course, we'd be stupid if we let the boureoisie have complete freedom, since history shows us that when the commnuists have been lenient, the former rulers have done everything in their power to overthrow the revolution, leading to very bloody civil wars and the degeneration of the revolution (which led to the rise of Stalin).

Stalin was put in power due to Civil War?

No, Stalin was the handpicked sucessor of Lenin. Lenin left Stalin specific instructions to purge (although admittedly Lenin probably never intended as much slaughter) the party.

People go out of business because they make moer than they can sell. American farmers have to paid not to produce because otherwise their great productiveness would swamp the market and none of them could make a living.

And Communist nations starve when the beurocrats can't get the food in the right place.

[Juggernaut]

While I'm not a communist, I do believe there are a few irrebuttable arguments in it's favor;

1. Utilitarian view. I believe a single consciousness can only generate a limited amount of happiness. As wealth reaches infinity, increased happiness reaches zero. Thus, at some extreme point, more money to an extremely wealthy person does not longer increase happiness and could successfully be distributed to the poorest people who experiences an inverted wealth/happiness curve. Result: More total generated happiness.

2. Everything is relative. Most people who have enough food to eat and a bed to sleep in still complain on how poor they are. Why? Because there's always someone who's richer. People compare. In relation to the Bill Gates you're a street bum. In relation to the stone-age chieftain you're Bill Gates. So, even if communism would lower the average "income" compared to today (I've actually never seen any mathematical-economical support for this), there would be no one richer than you and wealth that you don't know of doesn't make you feel bad. Else, all cavemen would have commited suicide. Oh. There's one little problem though. The middle and upper class who allegedly were better off then would still compare with the old days of capitalism. You'd have to give them a memory loss a lá MIB.

[SKILORD]

1. Tyrrany by Mob is the same as tyrrany by an individual, only more systematic and efficient.

2. Covetousness is an inheritly unfulfilling basis for a society. I can see now what seperates Capitalists from Communists. We would rather build ourselves financial Empires (As you note: the endless pursuit of money for moneys sake is unfulfilling. Congrats, we should all learn this lesson) than dismantling someone elses. You refuse, however, to allow us individual choices. Let those who wish for money pursue it and those who feel that happiness can be attained somhow else pursue their paths, We should not declare that money is all that matters and should therfore be equally divided.

[Kidlicious]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Urban Ranger
the excess production adds up to a huge waste of resources.

Don't forget about the shortages UR. Right now the homeless shelter for families is full where I live. NOw that's what I call an inefficiency. Who the hell cares how many SUVs we produce when homeless families have no place to go?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

COmmunism is not immoral it's people who are immoral, communism merely does not give the people a good protection from immorality that is naturally present in the society.

Capitalism/democracy does that much better (still lame as it is but the best so far) as it assumes that people are immoral ie there are much better safeguards built in the system to protect the weak from the immorality of the powerful.

If people were moral communism would be heaven.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SKILORD
America until the Civil War was lassaiz faire.

Tariffs were lassaiz-faire? The Bank of the U.S. was lassaiz-faire? The Whiskey Tax was lassaiz-faire? Government theft of Indian land was lassaiz-faire? Government theft of Meixcan land was lassaiz-faire? Wow? I never new lassaiz-faire meant so much government intervention.

My values aren't maintained by force.

Oh yes they are. Try and steal something and see how mysterious the force of the police is. If workers try and strike and march have a picket outside their plant, the police will try and break them up, the courts will impose fines, the President can declare a 'cooling-off' period and force people back to work.

I don't see anyone forcing the ineffeciencies you speak so haughtily of down our throat.

Just because you are willingly blind doesn't mean it isn't there.

Stalin was put in power due to Civil War?

The Civil War created a situtation in which Stalin was able to seize power, yes.

No, Stalin was the handpicked sucessor of Lenin.

Not hand-picked by Lenin. Lenin tried to have Stalin removed from authority. He just couldn't get any cooperation while he was incapacitated by his stroke. You might try and read Lenin's 'testament.' Tortsky was Lenin's hand-picked successor.

Lenin left Stalin specific instructions to purge (although admittedly Lenin probably never intended as much slaughter) the party.

BS! In fact, as part of his 'testament' Lenin argued that more workers should be admitted to the party,many more workers, in order to swamp the bureaucratic tendency which chose Stalin as its leader.

Communist nations starve when the beurocrats can't get the food in the right place.

Capitalist nations starve a lot more often the Communist nations do.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[
Capitalist nations starve a lot more often the Communist nations do.

not really... in proportion if you take all the communist states together and all the capitalist ones including africa/ south america etc...

on average I am 100% certain that all the hunger... think about it... Ukraine, Russia, China, etc... because of management mistakes would never have happened in a similarly developed capitalist society...


People in capitalism are hungry because of natural catastophes like droughts/floods or wars etc, and not some beurocratic/sadistic mistakes like killing all sparrows that the great Mao thought of... resulting in 30+ million of dead from hunger and similar. There is too much power and no accountability in the hands of too few men in a "common/traditional" communistic society. For it to function well...