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

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kidicious
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.

Two things , really , that I think may be contradictory .

"A communist system is likely to justify restricting trade in order to meet its goals of protecting its workers from exploitation" .

Is this really exploitation , where the workers get more than they would otherwise from the state ?

And if it is exploitation by your definition, then is it necessary to curtail such exploitation if , for the same amount of actual physical labout , the worker is getting more ?

Again , if this is exploitation , then are not the factories owned by the state also exploiting the workers ?

And the last most important question - What is the purpose of the state in your system ?

[Agathon]

I really doubt people like Marx would make the same critique of capitalism today.

The working conditions of ordinary people have improved immensely in developed countries since the 19th century when Marx was writing.

Did he not write that capitalism would produce such wealth as to put all previous eras to shame?

[Ted Striker]

so

[Spiffor]

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

Depends the form of "communism" you're talking about. In a completely planned economy, there is no room for autonomous economic activities, whether communes or not. In a non-planned Socialist economy, basically all businesses are communes, with a large ability at deciding their own rules. The law (superior to a commune's regulations) will affect the autonomy of the communes to a various extent, depending on which communist you ask.

The same diversity happens among capitalist societies. 19th century France crushed the Paris commune, whereas Israel allows Kibbutzim.

[Agathon]

Besides, we all know what happens when a bunch of people democratically decide that they no longer want their capitalist Lords and Masters.

Kind of makes Vel's complaints a bit thin.

[Velociryx]

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.

Why is this absurd? If fairness can, in fact, be dictated, then by your own definition, this is perfectly acceptable.

Again....tell King Solomon....and the two thousand odd years of history that have been guided by, in some form or fashion, his wisdom.

I'm sure they'll be....quite surprised to hear your startling revelation.



-=Vel=-
PS:

If fairness CAN be dictated, that's interesting.

Because, being human, would not the dictator ensure that his proclamation was "more fair" to him than to you....which seems rather at odds with the whole NOTION of fairness to begin with, yes?
-v

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
UR....IF there is widespread misunderstanding of the Great Red Machine, whose fault do you suppose that is?

It takes great effort on the part of a person who wishes to understand any complex concepts, such as biochemistry and quantum physics. It's the same as economic systems.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid calls himself a communist, and is preaching an ideology...a plan for a highly centralized utopia that bears at least a passing (very passing) resemblence to communism itself.

I dunno. I have only skimmed your initial passages, and Kid later denied they represented his version of communism.

Originally posted by Velociryx
If you guys can't get together on what you believe (I mean, even in broad terms)...if you present an odd patchwork quilt of contrasting ideas AND ideals to the people on the outside, such that even YOU can barely make sense of it, how on earth do you ever expect your movement to succeed?

What do you mean? All communists subscribe to the same core economic ideas, yet we differ on a broad range of periphery issues. You always get different schools of thought on any complex systems of thought.

It's the same thing with capitalism - you have the completely unregulated version in Victoria England and you have the almost socialist version in Scandinavia and Singapore.

[Velociryx]

Kind of makes Vel's complaints a bit thin.

hey Ag...I've been refraining from going after you on the basis of historical examples. Do you really want to open that can of worms?

Really?

Cos if you start, I'll start.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

All communists subscribe to the same core economic ideas

UR: Apparently Monkspider missed that memo....send it along to him, will you?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

It takes great effort on the part of a person who wishes to understand any complex concepts, such as biochemistry and quantum physics. It's the same as economic systems.


Yes. And how many quantum physicists do you suppose we would have if the teachers had the notorious habit of being run out of the building by the (unruly) students who asked questions that made the teachers feel uncomfortable or frustrated?

An excellent anaology, by the way.

-=Vel=-

[aneeshm]

To Agathorn - A gun is not a valid , rational argument in favour of a communist system . Force is an indicator of your supporters' inability to support themselves in a free system , and not of their rightness . This is why I support the state having professional armies capable of decimating the population in its entirety if they attempt such strong-arm tactics on those to whom they owe the most .

Brute force is the last resort of the incompetent and the worthless . And that a gun is your last argument in a debate where you are worsted is the sign of your complete incompentence and you worthlessness as a human being .

[Velociryx]

Aww c'mon Anee....you mean might DOESN'T make right?



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Before heading off to work this morning, I thought I would surprise all of you by saying that I have, in fact, found something I would like about Kid's Utopia.

Based on Ag's proposition that Fairness can be dictated, I'm willing to bet that he holds "Justice" can be dictated as well, and from what I have seen of the model before us, Kid would be in agreement.

Which means that a trial involving a jury would be rather a waste of effort, which in turn means no more jury duty!

Mark it down...I found something I like...

-=Vel=-
(trying to inject some odd bit of levity )

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I really doubt people like Marx would make the same critique of capitalism today.

The working conditions of ordinary people have improved immensely in developed countries since the 19th century when Marx was writing.

Indeed, many aspects of Marx's critics can now be considered wrong. Especially his economical critics are flawed, as it emphasizes too much the labor value of the products, and doesn't take enough into consideration the Third Sector in the production of wealth.

However, had there been no threat of a Socialist / Communist revolution, working conditions would have definitely not improved (at least not significantly) for the expandable people however. And welfare would probably not exist, or in a very minimalistic fashion.
Thus, the social aspect of Marx's criticism would remain a reality.

Even today, now that the chance of a communist revolution is more and more remote, we see the developed countries taking steps to dismantle their welfare / regulations net. The expandable workers get more and more pressure, less and less rights, and they are permanently blackmailed "either you accept my conditions, or there are thousands of jobless people who'll replace you".
Marx called it the unemployed the "industrial reserve army" as they allowed employers to put pressure on their expandable employees, and this remains definitely true.

What Marx didn't foresee, however, is that fewer employees are expandable now than before. In our advanced economies, a great many people need refined skills to perform the job. These specializations aren't too frequent on the job market, and employers must crave to keep their non-expandable employees.

The bulk of jobs remains expandable factory workers, MacJobs, walmart cashiers etc., who are definitely expandable. But the share of non-expandable jobs, since Marx, has grown from "nearly nil" to "significant". In the 19th century, an engineer, pharmacian, or university professor was quite a Bourgeois. Today, these people are far more numerous, and are generally among the upper tier of the middle class.

[Agathon]

hey Ag...I've been refraining from going after you on the basis of historical examples. Do you really want to open that can of worms?

Do you know what that is?