Calling all communists

[Dom Pedro II]

Yeah, take a look at Das Kapital... not light reading by any stretch of the imagination, and it certainly more focused on the mechanics rather than the morality.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JCG
That may be so, but the point I'd still like to make is...should you take the risk of killing all those people,

People are already dying, tens of millions every year. That is the price of doing nothing, of inaction. It is the price of profit.

[Dinner]

Re: Calling all communists

Originally posted by johncmcleod
WAY better for the environment

Have you ever even been to a former communist country and seen the neglect & damage the communist regimes did to the enviroment?

[Whaleboy]

Become a libertarian. Its like utilitarian, but more consistent, with most of the advantages of communism (libertarian socialism that is), with less disadvantages (like despotism). You'll have to put with capitalism, but as it is libertarian, there is a limit, unlike stupid simplistic utilitarianism which is fluid to the point of idiocy, not to mention the problems of interpreting the notion of "best interests" (substitute founding premise). One benefit of capitalism is lots of money! but obviously, it won't get so big that it can hurt people!.

Libertarian communism is great, is more consistent, but is less realistic than lib soc, which, for a relativist society, is actually pretty realistic.

Ignore Mill, he was an inconsistent fool. The Mill Limit on the other hand...

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Calling all communists

Originally posted by Oerdin





Have you ever even been to a former communist country and seen the neglect & damage the communist regimes did to the enviroment?

So true. We are every bit as bad as capitalism in this regard.

[Dinner]

Worse because in most capitalist societies citizens can petition for changes in enviromental laws. This makes the enviroment cleaner in most western countries dispite the much larger economic output.

[Dom Pedro II]

Worse because in most capitalist societies citizens can petition for changes in enviromental laws. This makes the enviroment cleaner in most western countries dispite the much larger economic output.

I think democratic is perhaps a better word than capitalist here.

[chequita guevara]

I disagree that it's true at all. The capitalist world doesn't simply mean the imperialist countries, it also includes the neo-colonies. Environmental devastation in the 3rd world is unimaginable, and certainly far worse that what you will find in the former Soviet bloc. Even in the U.S., it's only lack of attention that let's us think the damage here isn't so bad.

BTW, I think john is referring to a real communist society, and not simply those dicatorships run by Communist Parties, which were not communist, though I may accept that they were socialist.

[JCG]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
People are already dying, tens of millions every year. That is the price of doing nothing, of inaction. It is the price of profit.

So let me see....

Tens of millions are dying now, due to me (and everyone else here) doing nothing. True.

Killing a few millions in order to potentially improve the situation is doing "something". True.

Yet, if even after doing "something" tens of millions continue to die every year (including, of course, those that are dying precisely because of that "something" that you have chosen to do), it can be said that it was a completely worthless action, which should never have been committed in the first place. True, IMHO.

And, until now, most practical examples have shown that the risk is far too large of that happening (or rather, of that happening again and again and again and again., etc.....).

But well, as long as you're going to do "something" that may or may not change the situation, it's better to try to do "something" that at least won't result in more deaths , I believe.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, most of the practical examples showed that it worked. China had a famine every other year before the revolution, only one since then. If only a million people died in each famine, and twenty million died in the great leap forward, then seven million lives were saved so far. That's pretty much true for everplace the Communists have taken over. Granted, I don't agree with their methods, but your statement is still false.

[JCG]

Won't dispute the China thing, as it's not my forte and that would be an entirely different debate. So I'll suppose you're right on that....

Originally posted by chegitz guevara That's pretty much true for everplace the Communists have taken over.

Well, this is precisely what I seriously doubt. "Every" single place?

I don't think you (or me, or anyone else) has done such a comprehensive analysis (which would have to be done, btw, whether you're right or I were), most people settle for only a select few cases (and even then, only those cases that help one's argument, so it's not even the same sample).

[chequita guevara]

I did say pretty much true, which makes allowances for exceptions, such as Cambodia (which wasn't Marxist communism) and Ethiopia.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Calling all communists

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Communism
Pros:

Equality for everyone

I doubt it. Differences in stature and social position will still exist, they will just be based on something besides money.

All work is for a purpose, not just for your boss

Work is done for personal fullfillment as well as maintaining the necessities of society. We will try and diminish the amount of maintainence work through automation and improved productivity.

never a need to stress out over stuff at work

I doubt that. It just won't be a state of permanent stress such as we have now.

[Dom Pedro II]

Work is done for personal fullfillment as well as maintaining the necessities of society.

Man, Che, you have a lot more faith in humanity than I do. (Not necessarily a bad thing).

[JCG]

Of course, then there's the issue of which countries can be considered "communist" or not and questioning whether communism has been successful at improving the situation or not in a dozen other places (places were many people are still poor and still die in big numbers, btw....if you only want to say that communism causes "reductions" in the number of people dying, then even social-democracy could do that, and therefore there's no strict need for communism, is there?) and whether such results would proportionally apply to the rest of the world (or only in the specific circumstances of exploitaiton where it has triumphed, maybe not in the first world or in "almost developed" countries).