Communists, Don't Fear the Reaper....:D

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Velociryx


1) The "old style centralism" is definitely out (read: Stalin, et. al)
3) Something amorphous about exploitation

These are the only ones that hold true for me. My version of Communism is built around vague ideas of minimalistic government and a general atmosphere of living for the common good. It's a more Buddhist/Jesus-esque version of Communism I guess.

I'm actually very strongly pro-free market.

[Kidlicious]

Vel,

I vaguely remember a conversation about re-education camps. I remember advocating using them as rehabilitation for criminals not dissedents. If any govt were to arrest you just because you are a freelance writer for example, I would be there to defend you.

The point everyone is trying to make is that you aren't debating anyone here. You want to debate someone who advocates some kind of horrific totalitarian nightmare. I can find you a forum where you will find someone to take the other side on that one, but you will not find that debate here. There is no one here like that that I know of. You can debate Fez maybe, but that's about as close as you will get.

[Tuberski]

Dissenters being outside the system correct?

What happens to them?

ACK!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Dissenters being outside the system correct?

What happens to them?

ACK!

Nope, you are thinking of hermits.

[Tuberski]

Oh sure, take Vel seriously, but joke when Tuberski speaks.



ACK!

[Urban Ranger]

Only half-jesting.

I don't view dissidents to be outside of the system. They are unhappy about something and make that known.

Hermits are those who are outside of the system.

[Kidlicious]

He was joking too I think.

[Agathon]

Fairness can't be decided?

No, it can be argued about, but it cannot be a matter of decision.

If I say, "I just decided that it's fair that everyone lick my feet, so everyone ought to lick my feet", that is absurd. But it's only slightly more absurd than saying, "We've just decided that it is fair to imprison felons, therefore imprisoning felons is obligatory".

In both cases no moral reason has been given to support either prescription.

[Berzerker]

Another irony, under capitalism a group of people can form their own "commune" and practice communism but not the other way around. Why?

[Agathon]

Like the Paris Commune?

[aneeshm]

Kidicious : -

What exactly is the purpose of the state in your system ? Is it to protect the interests of the citizens , to to preserve the system , or to find the best possible system where the citizens have it the best ?

Because if the purpose is to further and protect the interests of the citizens , then closing down the business in my scenario or , as you called it , defending itself , will definitely not be in their own interests . Let us not forget that the prosperity of that city is because it supplies most of the small-time snacks of the nation . So , the citizens of the state would again lose because they would be again left without a choice of chips or flavours .

And if the state thinks it can print money , that has been proved economically impossible in reality , because the value of such money would keep decreasing - the state itself would be forced to raise prices because of such depriciation .

And then again , isn't not the state competing with this business good for everyone -

a) The citizens , because they have choice and products they did not have earlier

b) The workers , because they get paid more as a result of this business' policies

c) The governemnt itself , because of the great tax revenue from the workers and the owners

?

Also , the money it will lose because of competition is less than the money they will gain because they will now

a) No longer have to bail out its own companies in case they are mismanaged and

b) can tax the workers and owners .

Thus , such a business acts as a sort of stabiliser for the national chip industry , by providing a good estimate of market size and a buffer in case something goes wrong with the nationalised one .



In every case , it seems fair to everyone to let the business stay . Is that all right ? And again , what exactly is the purpose of the state in yout system ?

[aneeshm]

Double post .

[aneeshm]

Another small point - if the state carried out a policy of consistently flooding the markets of competitors , then would it not lead to inflation ? Not to mention huge losses to the state itself made necessary by the flooding ?

[Kidlicious]

aneeshm,

I lost my damn post. I'll give you the short version. Capitalist nations boycott products and sometimes use trade barriers to meet their goals and live up to their ideals. For example, the US govt has an embargo on Cuban cigars. I don't agree with the embargo personally, but collective the US citizenry does. A communist system is likely to justify restricting trade in order to meet it's goals of protecting it's workers from exploitation.

And the state doesn't need to print a dollar for every dollar spent. Money is recirculated. No taxes are needed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Another small point - if the state carried out a policy of consistently flooding the markets of competitors , then would it not lead to inflation ? Not to mention huge losses to the state itself made necessary by the flooding ?

That would be deflationary. The prices would be lower.

In such a system the govt doesn't lose money the same way. It doesn't have to pay off or collect debt.