Not if the politicians have no way to implement these things---it's called laissez-faire Capitalism for a reason; the gov't would have no power--no matter how corrupt the politicians become---to affect the economy.
This is why bardo calls it a wet-dream, and why it doesn't get implemented. You call Communism foolish because it asks men to willingly deny themselves power for the betterment of the people. Explain to me how this is any different, telling a government "Oh no. You have the military, control our security, and all that, but you aren't allowed to touch our economic system. Even though you have all the power. And the ability to force us to follow your rules. And doing so would give you masses more power and money. Oh no. You can't do that. Bad Senator."
This is why bardo calls it a wet-dream, and why it doesn't get implemented.
Why?
You call Communism foolish because it asks men to willingly deny themselves power for the betterment of the people.
Incorrect. You call Communism quixotic because of this; I call it foolish for so many other reasons, only one of which concerns human nature: human nature is simply too good for Communism. But let's pretend, for a moment, that you are right, for the sake of argument:
Explain to me how this is any different, telling a government "Oh no. You have the military, control our security, and all that, but you aren't allowed to touch our economic system. Even though you have all the power. And the ability to force us to follow your rules. And doing so would give you masses more power and money. Oh no. You can't do that. Bad Senator."
For the same reason you can tell the gov't not to take away freedom of speech, legalize slavery, or any number of other things: a legal constitution, the purpose of which being to limit the power of a gov't.
I call it foolish for so many other reasons, only one of which concerns human nature: human nature is simply too good for Communism. But let's pretend, for a moment, that you are right, for the sake of argument:
So I say it fails because of the nature of humans to like power, and you say it fails because of human nature... And I'm wrong? What other aspect of this mystical "human nature" causes communism to fall other than a desire for power thats more likely to be sated than ignored "for the good of the people"?
For the same reason you can tell the gov't not to take away freedom of speech, legalize slavery, or any number of other things: a legal constitution, the purpose of which being to limit the power of a gov't.
Except the goverment can already take chunks of free speech away. They can enstate the FCC to impose arbitrary rules as to what is 'dangerous' and what isn't. Where you are a child developmentally, and where you aren't. Besides that, it took a war and luck to get rid of slavery. Even the freaking war that brought it's end had nothing to do with slavery, the African American community (as horrible as this is) just got lucky Lincoln thought it as a bargaining chip against Europe was better than any other. It had nothing to do with public opinion, where abolition was hated both in the South and in large parts of the North.
You claim that if you put up enough regulations you'll be able to stop it, but so long as a government exists to protect it's citizenry, as long as people like money and power, and that government can edit it's own rules to adapt to changing times (as ANY good government must be able to, or it will just crumble), you will not be able to magically make uncorrupt and power-thirsty politicians who will not try to dip their thumbs in the pie of economics, amongst many others.
This is the kind of ruling that is just so outrageous, there's just gotta be a grassroots uprising to correct this matter through legislation. If there's not, well, you get the government you deserve.
Heh. You overestimate the mob.
The problem you all have is that you assume politicians have principles. When the Democrats where in control of the government, they wanted to strengthen government, and the Republicans, being the minority party, wanted to weaken it. Now that the Republicans are in power, do you really expect them to remain consistent? To continue to champion libertarian causes and to reform the corrupt systems? Of course not. Hypocricy is a poison the Right is ready to swallow because it already has the antidote: control of a desperately sycophantic media. The New Republican wants big government and deficit spending for exactly the same reasons the Old Democrats wanted to; greed and convenience.
The solution? In the short-term, to bolster the Democrats. However, power will re-corrupt them as well, given time. I can't think of a long-term plan with any reasonable odds of success. America's decadent collapse is so close I can taste it.
Spock is not portrayed correctly. If Vulcans are above petty emotions, what motivates him to join the most elite starship crew in the galaxy? I, on the other hand, have transcended the weakness of emotion and achieved a blissful lack of caring. Apathy is my strength, our strength, which prevents us from being all-to-human. In this spirit, may Meh be with you, always.
So I say it fails because of the nature of humans to like power, and you say it fails because of human nature... And I'm wrong? What other aspect of this mystical "human nature" causes communism to fall other than a desire for power thats more likely to be sated than ignored "for the good of the people"?
I think you misunderstood him. He wasn't talking about other aspects of human nature, he was talking about other objections to communism outside of human nature. He simply gave his example of human nature because that is what you were refering to. A discussion of his other objections to communism can be found here
So I say it fails because of the nature of humans to like power, and you say it fails because of human nature... And I'm wrong? What other aspect of this mystical "human nature" causes communism to fall other than a desire for power thats more likely to be sated than ignored "for the good of the people"?
Bogarden Mage is mostly right---my biggest objection to Communism is not that it's incongruent with human nature.
However, since you love to talk about human nature and Communism so much, there is another aspect of human nature, besides that of the leaders, which makes Communism fail---that of the people.
Communism demands of the people that they be willing to sacrifice everything in their lives---their home, their business, their livelyhood, their families---for the sake of the collective. It demands that they be willing to give up everything that's important to them for the good of the whole. But people are not like that. People have this strange tendency to actually enjoy life, which is a big problem even in a so-called "ideal" Communist system--if such a thing can be said to exist.
Except the goverment can already take chunks of free speech away. They can enstate the FCC to impose arbitrary rules as to what is 'dangerous' and what isn't. Where you are a child developmentally, and where you aren't. Besides that, it took a war and luck to get rid of slavery. Even the freaking war that brought it's end had nothing to do with slavery, the African American community (as horrible as this is) just got lucky Lincoln thought it as a bargaining chip against Europe was better than any other. It had nothing to do with public opinion, where abolition was hated both in the South and in large parts of the North.
You claim that if you put up enough regulations you'll be able to stop it, but so long as a government exists to protect it's citizenry, as long as people like money and power, and that government can edit it's own rules to adapt to changing times (as ANY good government must be able to, or it will just crumble), you will not be able to magically make uncorrupt and power-thirsty politicians who will not try to dip their thumbs in the pie of economics, amongst many others.
No, you cannot stop them entirely...but you can make it damn hard for them to touch it. Of course, you are also assuming that there are enough corrupt and power-thirsty politicians to make a difference.
No, you cannot stop them entirely...but you can make it damn hard for them to touch it. Of course, you are also assuming that there are enough corrupt and power-thirsty politicians to make a difference.
You may notice a tendancy in my style of discussion. I don't like discussing the morality of a legal situation over the legality, and I talk about the human nature of those in power in Communism versus those serving them (you are absolutely right about the need for a collective will, which is essentially impossible). I tend to discuss the root power and forces of change when I'm talking about an issue, and here we're discussing a perfect laissez-faire economy so I talk about the inevitability of people wanting the power of what would become the new 'third rail' of politics, economics (currently regarded to be Social Security. You touch it and you die, but everybody wants it because it's where the power is)
Neither capitalism nor Socialism work very well in practise given the current population of the masses. But capitalism works better.
There is no THE MAN who is unstopable and owns your life. There was a factory that was about to get outsourced and the employees acted under a government program they had stumbled across (yes the evil govenrment that is apparently out soley for the purpose of reaping from the masses and giving it to the wealthy elite) and ended up buying the plant from their employers. Yes the supposed evil capitalist empire has ways of protecting the weak..
On that topic I'm sick of the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer nonsense. Its always being spouted out by little gangsta wanna be kids who wear designer clothes, go home and eat yummy yummy food and turn on their colour tv where music videos from equally if not more well off hypocrites teach them this BS. I grew up for the first few years of my life in a small empoverished neighborhood. My dad and my mom worked through it though. My mom got a job working the opposite shift as my dad and worked her butt off full time and always gave me and my brothers 1 parent home at any given time. They worked damn hard to get us out of that neighborhood into the neighborhood I live in now... Which is a mid to upper class neighborhood. not quite riches, but by WORKING at it my parents got us out of rags. Even still I'll admit I didn't have it bad.
If you were poor in my grand mothers days... which she was poor then you grew up much closer to hell than these "rap stars" and wanna be gangstas. When I see an 80 year old rapper I'll believe their whiney bull**** because back then the poor were much poorer than they are now. Not only the poor but everyone from that Era was young when they endured probably the most horrifying era in human history, The second world war. And many of our grand parents came from over-seas where it was all going on. Many of our grand parents enlisted so that they could have work, and be fed and sheltered. These people grew up in hell.
I think its suffice to say that the poor are getting more well off, the people that you see with cardboard signs well they aren't poor. Because of people like you who actually give them change they pull in huge ammounts of money. My girlfriend works at a restaurant where often times they come to get bills for their change... And I dont even want to talk about how much they make because it just sickens me.
They are on the streets because they spend their money on heroine. That is not a generalization or anything. The fact is there are govenrment programs that will get you food and shelter if you are truely needy. But there are no government programs that will give you sickening ammounts of money to spend on heroine. Thus the heroine addicts who threw away their entire life for heroine stand with their cardboard sign making enough money for a sandwich and their fixes of heroine each day. Or their alcohol , alcohol puts some people on the street too. But anybody who works at a job lives indoors. *scratches chin* a strange coincidence.
Now take these kids in their designer sports jerseys strutting around acting like they are living the hard knock life. My grandma had a harder childhood than them and I bet she could kick their wussy asses.
The rich are getting richer... the common man is getting more opportunity to be rich... and the poor are provided for like they have never been before as long as they are willing to work and accept the government programs as they are. If they are physically incapable of working then the government can generally provide assistance to compensate for that fact as well.
Once again, liberals in the US are implementing socialism from the bench.
So, for all you libs that claim that conservatives foster class warfare, maybe you should open your eyes and realize that it's your party's ideals that are really fostering it!
As TheBlueWizard and generatrix pointed out, the siezure of individual's private property so that that property can be given to corporations is non-liberal (though it may be neo-liberal) and TOTALLY non-socialist. Indeed there's a vast historical and contemporary precedent for this in that every socialist government that has ever existed has (before it was destroyed by Western Superpowres) done the exact opposite. To-whit, they siezed land and property owned by corpororations and parceled it up and gave it to the peasentry who lived there. The last hundred and fifty years of US foriegn policy in Central America has US exerting its military and economic powers to crush these populist governments and replace them with repressive dictatorships.
Quote from ljossberir »
Quote from generatrix »
just one point. uprooting families from thier homes so a private business can go there is not socialism, it's capitalism.
Wrong. Government and business are not supposed to be "in bed" together.
Ljossberir is correct. Technically this sourt of intense collaboration between the private and public sectors is called fascism.
Quote from ljossberir »
To enslave [the upper class], in other words.
No, to destroy the upper class. Killing the people is not necessary. Dismantelling the socio-economic system that creates disparities of wealth is the goal. So neccessarily, the upper class must cease to exist. By the mobs of Czarist Russia this translated into executing them, but that's probably counter-productive. Among other alternate strategies that would prove more effective is the wide-spread non-compliance of the working class. And I don't mean staging a massive strike that brings civilization crashing down. I mean continuing to work in those farms and factories that produce what the emerging socialist amalgamate (nation would be a misnomer in this case) had need for but simply refusing to allow the established socioeconomic system a place in the exchanges and transportation of these products.
Quote from ljossberir »
This has absolutely nothing to do with the free market. Infact, this is nearly the opposite. I'm amazed that you would say this. In the free market one could only buy what another party is willing to sell.
Again you are correct. In fact, there hasn't ever been afree market in the first place so talking about the govenment bowing to the will of the free market is dillusional.
Quote from ljossberir »
both [fascists and socialists] are authoritarian, that's for sure.
This is not necessarily true. Anarcho-socialism has suggests that all decisions be made (preferably by consensus) at the most local level possible. Local communities decide how to allocate their resources and how to trade with neighbohring communities. Decisions that affect wider ranges of people draw more people together. Everyone that can come and wants. If some communities want to send delegates, they can, if they just want to come en masse, they can. Since the whole thing is consensus based, there's no real benefit gained by having "more votes." The discussion continues until consensus is reached and a desicion is made. Before you say that this is impractical, the indegiouness inhabitants of Java who numbered in the thousands before they were wiped out by Europeans functioned in this way for almost two thousand years.
Quote from T2Sux »
That is so wrong, it's not even a little bit funny. The primary goal of Capitalism is preserving the free market by means of protecting private property. Seriously, read a goddam book.
Flamming is not needed and perhaps you should "read a goddamned book" because I can site a half-dozen examples of socialist governments uprooting corporations and giving the land away in the last fifty years. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Honduras and Guatemala.
@ T2Sux: You're right about Capitalism, but as I said before, there is not now, nor has there ever been a free market, so the point is sort of moot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
:symtap:, sacrifice White Privilege: Destroy economic injustice.
Communism demands of the people that they be willing to sacrifice everything in their lives---their home, their business, their livelyhood, their families---for the sake of the collective. It demands that they be willing to give up everything that's important to them for the good of the whole. But people are not like that. People have this strange tendency to actually enjoy life, which is a big problem even in a so-called "ideal" Communist system--if such a thing can be said to exist.
But what you're missing is that everyone makes these sacrifices. The only people who are worse off under communism are those who are above the average economically. It is my understanding that the majority of people in the world are below said average.
BTW, how does communism demand a sacrifice of one's family?
BTW, how does communism demand a sacrifice of one's family?
Because, theoretically, if ran... Say a farm, and you weren't getting enough cash/food to feed your family, you'd still be expected under perfect Communism to yield all your crop to the government for distribution, and not 'selfishly' keep some for yourself. At least, that's how I see it.
Because, theoretically, if ran... Say a farm, and you weren't getting enough cash/food to feed your family, you'd still be expected under perfect Communism to yield all your crop to the government for distribution, and not 'selfishly' keep some for yourself. At least, that's how I see it.
Ah, so it's a strawman that makes communism seem like some giant corporation headed by the government. I see.
You may notice a tendancy in my style of discussion.
Oh?
I don't like discussing the morality of a legal situation over the legality, and I talk about the human nature of those in power in Communism versus those serving them (you are absolutely right about the need for a collective will, which is essentially impossible).
Okay.
I tend to discuss the root power and forces of change when I'm talking about an issue, and here we're discussing a perfect laissez-faire economy so I talk about the inevitability of people wanting the power of what would become the new 'third rail' of politics, economics (currently regarded to be Social Security. You touch it and you die, but everybody wants it because it's where the power is.).
But as long as it remains a third rail--and one which could be made very dangerous indeed---it is less than likely that it will be touched; observe the reluctance, even among conservatives, to go after S_S reform. Now imagine if in order to change S_S, it would require a constitutional amendment. Would it not be even more dangerous, and consequently, safe?
Quote from BenGreen »
As TheBlueWizard and generatrix pointed out, the siezure of individual's private property so that that property can be given to corporations is non-liberal (though it may be neo-liberal) and TOTALLY non-socialist. Indeed there's a vast historical and contemporary precedent for this in that every socialist government that has ever existed has (before it was destroyed by Western Superpowres) done the exact opposite. To-whit, they siezed land and property owned by corpororations and parceled it up and gave it to the peasentry who lived there. The last hundred and fifty years of US foriegn policy in Central America has US exerting its military and economic powers to crush these populist governments and replace them with repressive dictatorships.
You are correct in that it is not socialism--that was a mistake on my part. I was simply referring to Socialism's tendency to wish to plan the economy---which this ruling is specifically meant to do. However, you are right in that it is more akin to Fascism.
@ T2Sux: You're right about Capitalism, but as I said before, there is not now, nor has there ever been a free market, so the point is sort of moot.
How is it a moot point? They were making terrible misrepresentations of Capitalism, and I was correcting them.
Quote from Bogarden Mage »
But what you're missing is that everyone makes these sacrifices. The only people who are worse off under communism are those who are above the average economically. It is my understanding that the majority of people in the world are below said average.
I would say that everyone is worse off under Communism---when the means of production are owned, not by those able to produce, but by beaurocrats, everyone's quality of life goes down.
Ah, so it's a strawman that makes communism seem like some giant corporation headed by the government. I see.
Pardone moi? Whom are you accusing of straw-manning? Stax was absolutely correct(who'da thunkit?), under a Communist system, the needs of the collective override your needs, and those of your family. I fail to see the straw man...
But as long as it remains a third rail--and one which could be made very dangerous indeed---it is less than likely that it will be touched; observe the reluctance, even among conservatives, to go after S_S reform. Now imagine if in order to change S_S, it would require a constitutional amendment. Would it not be even more dangerous, and consequently, safe?
Yes, except that old people who need their few hundred dollar check to get through the month aren't going to have the same kind of fundraising power and influence that people for whom federal economic reform affects the most would. You could make it more safe, but that wouldn't change the powers held by those in office or those who want those in office to do something.
Yes, except that old people who need their few hundred dollar check to get through the month aren't going to have the same kind of fundraising power and influence that people for whom federal economic reform affects the most would. You could make it more safe, but that wouldn't change the powers held by those in office or those who want those in office to do something.
I disagree. The people whom economic reform negatively affects(ie, businessmen, corporations, et al) hold the biggest pieces of the fundraising pie---I doubt that if economic perfection(Capitalism) were achieved, the corporations would let it slip away.
I disagree. The people whom economic reform negatively affects(ie, businessmen, corporations, et al) hold the biggest pieces of the fundraising pie---I doubt that if economic perfection(Capitalism) were achieved, the corporations would let it slip away.
Perfect capitalism isn't perfect for big buisness, as massive companies like airlines wouldn't be able to get their tasty federal bailouts, just to name one example of why this wouldn't work.
Perfect capitalism isn't perfect for big buisness, as massive companies like airlines wouldn't be able to get their tasty federal bailouts, just to name one example of why this wouldn't work.
I think, in terms of lobbyists, giant Corporations *cough* Microsoft *cough*, outrank a few disgruntled, bankrupt airlines, who shouldn't have those ****ty bailouts in the first place.
I think, in terms of lobbyists, giant Corporations *cough* Microsoft *cough*, outrank a few disgruntled, bankrupt airlines, who shouldn't have those ****ty bailouts in the first place.
They shouldn't, but they get them. My point is your system is foolish (as it oppresses the poor by giving them no assistance versus the minor aid they get from a tax break), unwieldy (no politician would ever set up such a system anywhere), and unreasonable (I don't get why Microsoft would care if the airlines are getting bailouts, unless Microsoft decides to open a profitable airline and wants to watch the competition die. Unless that happens, airlines have arseloads of cash to lobby with, which will simply outweigh opposition power)
I would say that everyone is worse off under Communism---when the means of production are owned, not by those able to produce, but by beaurocrats, everyone's quality of life goes down.
But that's not communism. Communism, by defintion, is about the community, not the beaurocrats. What you're describing is the strawman I mentioned earlier about a giant corportation. It is, in fact, closer to capitalism than to communism (except without the free market).
Quote from T2sux »
Pardone moi? Whom are you accusing of straw-manning? Stax was absolutely correct(who'da thunkit?), under a Communist system, the needs of the collective override your needs, and those of your family. I fail to see the straw man...
Earth to T2sux! You and your family are part of the collective. If you and your family are suffering, then the community will give you what you need (assuming, of course, the community can provide it). You could be appealing to the strawman I elaborated on above, that communism is a giant corporation (it's not), or perhaps you are simply ignoring the fact that other people exist under capitalism as well, and they will suffer while you and your family live happily ever after. I hope you sleep well.
But that's not communism. Communism, by defintion, is about the community, not the beaurocrats. What you're describing is the strawman I mentioned earlier about a giant corportation. It is, in fact, closer to capitalism than to communism (except without the free market).
Incorrect. Even under a "pure" system of Communism, where communal ownership is enacted, the gov't would still control the production and distribution of products.
Earth to T2sux!
Yes?
You and your family are part of the collective.
Any part of the collective may be sacrificed for the whole. If you are a farmer, to use Stax's analogy, and you haven't really produced enough to subsist on, that doesn't change your duty to your fellows.
If you and your family are suffering, then the community will give you what you need (assuming, of course, the community can provide it).
And how likely is it that the community could provide it---especially if even the farmers are starving?
You could be appealing to the strawman I elaborated on above[.]
Okay, allow me to clarify something: that was not a straw man. If anything, though I disagree, you could say it was a misrepresentation of the facts---that I wasn't strawmanning Communism, I was "making something up" about it, specifically that it is some kind of uber-Corp. So please, stop calling it that.
[...]that communism is a giant corporation (it's not), or perhaps you are simply ignoring the fact that other people exist under capitalism as well, and they will suffer while you and your family live happily ever after.
Oh, I know that there are other people...I just don't believe that they have a right to demand that I support them.
Incorrect. Even under a "pure" system of Communism, where communal ownership is enacted, the gov't would still control the production and distribution of products.
But (assuming the government is not corrupt) the government doesn't keep it for itself to make a profit. They have a responsibility to distribute it fairly and evenly.
Quote from T2sux »
Yes? Any part of the collective may be sacrificed for the whole. If you are a farmer, to use Stax's analogy, and you haven't really produced enough to subsist on, that doesn't change your duty to your fellows.
No, but it makes you needy. And the needy are protected.
Quote from T2sux »
And how likely is it that the community could provide it---especially if even the farmers are starving?
Poverty exists under capitalism too. What you're talking about is a worst case scenario. You're also only focusing on a single family. Under communism, that family might be hungry. Under capitalism, that family might produce enough to feed itself, but many more poverty striken families will be much worse off.
Quote from T2sux »
Okay, allow me to clarify something: that was not a straw man. If anything, though I disagree, you could say it was a misrepresentation of the facts---that I wasn't strawmanning Communism, I was "making something up" about it, specifically that it is some kind of uber-Corp. So please, stop calling it that.
Ok, fine.
Quote from T2sux »
Oh, I know that there are other people...I just don't believe that they have a right to demand that I support them.
And equally, you have no right to demand support from anyone else. Would you be happy with that arrangement in their shoes?
But (assuming the government is not corrupt) the government doesn't keep it for itself to make a profit. They have a responsibility to distribute it fairly and evenly.
When did I ever imply differently? Yes, they distribute it, but to the neediest--and if you're not the neediest, you're screwed.
No, but it makes you needy. And the needy are protected.
And when the whole country is needy? How much protection do you think they'll get?
Poverty exists under capitalism too. What you're talking about is a worst case scenario. You're also only focusing on a single family. Under communism, that family might be hungry. Under capitalism, that family might produce enough to feed itself, but many more poverty striken families will be much worse off.
The difference is, Capitalism doesn't claim to end poverty---Communism does. So if it fails in even a single case, it is not serving its purpose.
And equally, you have no right to demand support from anyone else. Would you be happy with that arrangement in their shoes?
Well, I am in their shoes, and I don't demand support...so...yes, I think I would be rather happy in their shoes.
Eminent domain, which i dislike to begin with, syayes that property may be taken for public use and the owners must be given fair compensation. The problem is that this compensation is never truely fair. For example, I live in an upper-missle class community. most of the homes are on acre+ lots and almost evryopne has pools. My home has a three-teir deck, 2 patios, pool, just under an acre lot, and 3,300 sq. feet, not counting our finished basement. I am not bragging, I am merely giving information to show why eminent domain is unjust.
If my home were for sale, it would easily bring in excess of $500,000. My neighbors moved roughly 5 years ago and had a significantly smaller home and lot, and nothing special as far as pools decks, and additions go. Their home sold for in excess or $350,000 and went to a bidding war. If my home was seized under eminent domain, my parents would get about $100,000, the extreme low-end value for the land alone. Thing slike that would ruin my parents financially, and would prevent me from going to college, as well as both my borthers, simply because there would not be the money for it. This could potentially leave me, and my descendants, at a poverty level of income.
A factory behind my house wants to expand (this part is true) and routinely buys the townships new fire trucks and engages in other forms of bribrery. What keeping 3 generations of my family safe form business.
I honestly feel that this is, at least to some degree, a conspiracy on the part of conservatives/republicans. Big business is esstentially being given free land by the federal government. It is wrong. I think it is high time that the Declaration of Independence be ennacted. If the governement fails the people, the people are allowed to remove said government by whatever means necessary. If it means a second American Revolution, so be it. The government is faling to serve the people it was enstated to protect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Who woulda guessed?
Jet black eyes. Deep thought. Riddles of life unravvel.
When did I ever imply differently? Yes, they distribute it, but to the neediest--and if you're not the neediest, you're screwed.
If you're not the neediest, by definition, you need less than the neediest. Once the neediest have what they need, the less needy get what they need. Your arguements only apply to severe recession.
Quote from T2sux »
And when the whole country is needy? How much protection do you think they'll get?
What if a whole capitalist country is needy?
Quote from T2sux »
The difference is, Capitalism doesn't claim to end poverty---Communism does. So if it fails in even a single case, it is not serving its purpose.
It diminishes poverty. It is unrealistic to expect anything to end poverty under all circumstances (although your arguement does leave a question, where do all these severe recessions come from?)
Quote from T2sux »
Well, I am in their shoes, and I don't demand support...so...yes, I think I would be rather happy in their shoes.
You have access to the Internet and you are using it to discuss the benefits of capitalism. I think it is a reasonable guess that you are not the lowest rung of society.
If you're not the neediest, by definition, you need less than the neediest. Once the neediest have what they need, the less needy get what they need. Your arguements only apply to severe recession.
And who determines what you need? Who determines levels of need?
What if a whole capitalist country is needy?
They'd better try and keep themselves from being needy.
It diminishes poverty. It is unrealistic to expect anything to end poverty under all circumstances.
And is that not what Communism claims?
(although your arguement does leave a question, where do all these severe recessions come from?)
Not sure what you mean here.
You have access to the Internet and you are using it to discuss the benefits of capitalism. I think it is a reasonable guess that you are not the lowest rung of society.
Internet access is ten bucks a month---not a great economic indicator. I am not at the lowest rung...but I am damn close, I assure you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There is no God and we are his prophets.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is why bardo calls it a wet-dream, and why it doesn't get implemented. You call Communism foolish because it asks men to willingly deny themselves power for the betterment of the people. Explain to me how this is any different, telling a government "Oh no. You have the military, control our security, and all that, but you aren't allowed to touch our economic system. Even though you have all the power. And the ability to force us to follow your rules. And doing so would give you masses more power and money. Oh no. You can't do that. Bad Senator."
It's just as foolish a dream.
So I say it fails because of the nature of humans to like power, and you say it fails because of human nature... And I'm wrong? What other aspect of this mystical "human nature" causes communism to fall other than a desire for power thats more likely to be sated than ignored "for the good of the people"?
Except the goverment can already take chunks of free speech away. They can enstate the FCC to impose arbitrary rules as to what is 'dangerous' and what isn't. Where you are a child developmentally, and where you aren't. Besides that, it took a war and luck to get rid of slavery. Even the freaking war that brought it's end had nothing to do with slavery, the African American community (as horrible as this is) just got lucky Lincoln thought it as a bargaining chip against Europe was better than any other. It had nothing to do with public opinion, where abolition was hated both in the South and in large parts of the North.
You claim that if you put up enough regulations you'll be able to stop it, but so long as a government exists to protect it's citizenry, as long as people like money and power, and that government can edit it's own rules to adapt to changing times (as ANY good government must be able to, or it will just crumble), you will not be able to magically make uncorrupt and power-thirsty politicians who will not try to dip their thumbs in the pie of economics, amongst many others.
The problem you all have is that you assume politicians have principles. When the Democrats where in control of the government, they wanted to strengthen government, and the Republicans, being the minority party, wanted to weaken it. Now that the Republicans are in power, do you really expect them to remain consistent? To continue to champion libertarian causes and to reform the corrupt systems? Of course not. Hypocricy is a poison the Right is ready to swallow because it already has the antidote: control of a desperately sycophantic media. The New Republican wants big government and deficit spending for exactly the same reasons the Old Democrats wanted to; greed and convenience.
The solution? In the short-term, to bolster the Democrats. However, power will re-corrupt them as well, given time. I can't think of a long-term plan with any reasonable odds of success. America's decadent collapse is so close I can taste it.
Spock is not portrayed correctly. If Vulcans are above petty emotions, what motivates him to join the most elite starship crew in the galaxy? I, on the other hand, have transcended the weakness of emotion and achieved a blissful lack of caring. Apathy is my strength, our strength, which prevents us from being all-to-human. In this spirit, may Meh be with you, always.
I think you misunderstood him. He wasn't talking about other aspects of human nature, he was talking about other objections to communism outside of human nature. He simply gave his example of human nature because that is what you were refering to. A discussion of his other objections to communism can be found here
However, since you love to talk about human nature and Communism so much, there is another aspect of human nature, besides that of the leaders, which makes Communism fail---that of the people.
Communism demands of the people that they be willing to sacrifice everything in their lives---their home, their business, their livelyhood, their families---for the sake of the collective. It demands that they be willing to give up everything that's important to them for the good of the whole. But people are not like that. People have this strange tendency to actually enjoy life, which is a big problem even in a so-called "ideal" Communist system--if such a thing can be said to exist. No, you cannot stop them entirely...but you can make it damn hard for them to touch it. Of course, you are also assuming that there are enough corrupt and power-thirsty politicians to make a difference.
You may notice a tendancy in my style of discussion. I don't like discussing the morality of a legal situation over the legality, and I talk about the human nature of those in power in Communism versus those serving them (you are absolutely right about the need for a collective will, which is essentially impossible). I tend to discuss the root power and forces of change when I'm talking about an issue, and here we're discussing a perfect laissez-faire economy so I talk about the inevitability of people wanting the power of what would become the new 'third rail' of politics, economics (currently regarded to be Social Security. You touch it and you die, but everybody wants it because it's where the power is)
There is no THE MAN who is unstopable and owns your life. There was a factory that was about to get outsourced and the employees acted under a government program they had stumbled across (yes the evil govenrment that is apparently out soley for the purpose of reaping from the masses and giving it to the wealthy elite) and ended up buying the plant from their employers. Yes the supposed evil capitalist empire has ways of protecting the weak..
On that topic I'm sick of the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer nonsense. Its always being spouted out by little gangsta wanna be kids who wear designer clothes, go home and eat yummy yummy food and turn on their colour tv where music videos from equally if not more well off hypocrites teach them this BS. I grew up for the first few years of my life in a small empoverished neighborhood. My dad and my mom worked through it though. My mom got a job working the opposite shift as my dad and worked her butt off full time and always gave me and my brothers 1 parent home at any given time. They worked damn hard to get us out of that neighborhood into the neighborhood I live in now... Which is a mid to upper class neighborhood. not quite riches, but by WORKING at it my parents got us out of rags. Even still I'll admit I didn't have it bad.
If you were poor in my grand mothers days... which she was poor then you grew up much closer to hell than these "rap stars" and wanna be gangstas. When I see an 80 year old rapper I'll believe their whiney bull**** because back then the poor were much poorer than they are now. Not only the poor but everyone from that Era was young when they endured probably the most horrifying era in human history, The second world war. And many of our grand parents came from over-seas where it was all going on. Many of our grand parents enlisted so that they could have work, and be fed and sheltered. These people grew up in hell.
I think its suffice to say that the poor are getting more well off, the people that you see with cardboard signs well they aren't poor. Because of people like you who actually give them change they pull in huge ammounts of money. My girlfriend works at a restaurant where often times they come to get bills for their change... And I dont even want to talk about how much they make because it just sickens me.
They are on the streets because they spend their money on heroine. That is not a generalization or anything. The fact is there are govenrment programs that will get you food and shelter if you are truely needy. But there are no government programs that will give you sickening ammounts of money to spend on heroine. Thus the heroine addicts who threw away their entire life for heroine stand with their cardboard sign making enough money for a sandwich and their fixes of heroine each day. Or their alcohol , alcohol puts some people on the street too. But anybody who works at a job lives indoors. *scratches chin* a strange coincidence.
Now take these kids in their designer sports jerseys strutting around acting like they are living the hard knock life. My grandma had a harder childhood than them and I bet she could kick their wussy asses.
The rich are getting richer... the common man is getting more opportunity to be rich... and the poor are provided for like they have never been before as long as they are willing to work and accept the government programs as they are. If they are physically incapable of working then the government can generally provide assistance to compensate for that fact as well.
As TheBlueWizard and generatrix pointed out, the siezure of individual's private property so that that property can be given to corporations is non-liberal (though it may be neo-liberal) and TOTALLY non-socialist. Indeed there's a vast historical and contemporary precedent for this in that every socialist government that has ever existed has (before it was destroyed by Western Superpowres) done the exact opposite. To-whit, they siezed land and property owned by corpororations and parceled it up and gave it to the peasentry who lived there. The last hundred and fifty years of US foriegn policy in Central America has US exerting its military and economic powers to crush these populist governments and replace them with repressive dictatorships.
Ljossberir is correct. Technically this sourt of intense collaboration between the private and public sectors is called fascism.
No, to destroy the upper class. Killing the people is not necessary. Dismantelling the socio-economic system that creates disparities of wealth is the goal. So neccessarily, the upper class must cease to exist. By the mobs of Czarist Russia this translated into executing them, but that's probably counter-productive. Among other alternate strategies that would prove more effective is the wide-spread non-compliance of the working class. And I don't mean staging a massive strike that brings civilization crashing down. I mean continuing to work in those farms and factories that produce what the emerging socialist amalgamate (nation would be a misnomer in this case) had need for but simply refusing to allow the established socioeconomic system a place in the exchanges and transportation of these products.
Again you are correct. In fact, there hasn't ever been afree market in the first place so talking about the govenment bowing to the will of the free market is dillusional.
This is not necessarily true. Anarcho-socialism has suggests that all decisions be made (preferably by consensus) at the most local level possible. Local communities decide how to allocate their resources and how to trade with neighbohring communities. Decisions that affect wider ranges of people draw more people together. Everyone that can come and wants. If some communities want to send delegates, they can, if they just want to come en masse, they can. Since the whole thing is consensus based, there's no real benefit gained by having "more votes." The discussion continues until consensus is reached and a desicion is made. Before you say that this is impractical, the indegiouness inhabitants of Java who numbered in the thousands before they were wiped out by Europeans functioned in this way for almost two thousand years.
Flamming is not needed and perhaps you should "read a goddamned book" because I can site a half-dozen examples of socialist governments uprooting corporations and giving the land away in the last fifty years. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Honduras and Guatemala.
@ T2Sux: You're right about Capitalism, but as I said before, there is not now, nor has there ever been a free market, so the point is sort of moot.
But what you're missing is that everyone makes these sacrifices. The only people who are worse off under communism are those who are above the average economically. It is my understanding that the majority of people in the world are below said average.
BTW, how does communism demand a sacrifice of one's family?
Because, theoretically, if ran... Say a farm, and you weren't getting enough cash/food to feed your family, you'd still be expected under perfect Communism to yield all your crop to the government for distribution, and not 'selfishly' keep some for yourself. At least, that's how I see it.
Ah, so it's a strawman that makes communism seem like some giant corporation headed by the government. I see.
You are correct in that it is not socialism--that was a mistake on my part. I was simply referring to Socialism's tendency to wish to plan the economy---which this ruling is specifically meant to do. However, you are right in that it is more akin to Fascism. How is it a moot point? They were making terrible misrepresentations of Capitalism, and I was correcting them. I would say that everyone is worse off under Communism---when the means of production are owned, not by those able to produce, but by beaurocrats, everyone's quality of life goes down. Pardone moi? Whom are you accusing of straw-manning? Stax was absolutely correct(who'da thunkit?), under a Communist system, the needs of the collective override your needs, and those of your family. I fail to see the straw man...
Yes, except that old people who need their few hundred dollar check to get through the month aren't going to have the same kind of fundraising power and influence that people for whom federal economic reform affects the most would. You could make it more safe, but that wouldn't change the powers held by those in office or those who want those in office to do something.
Perfect capitalism isn't perfect for big buisness, as massive companies like airlines wouldn't be able to get their tasty federal bailouts, just to name one example of why this wouldn't work.
They shouldn't, but they get them. My point is your system is foolish (as it oppresses the poor by giving them no assistance versus the minor aid they get from a tax break), unwieldy (no politician would ever set up such a system anywhere), and unreasonable (I don't get why Microsoft would care if the airlines are getting bailouts, unless Microsoft decides to open a profitable airline and wants to watch the competition die. Unless that happens, airlines have arseloads of cash to lobby with, which will simply outweigh opposition power)
But that's not communism. Communism, by defintion, is about the community, not the beaurocrats. What you're describing is the strawman I mentioned earlier about a giant corportation. It is, in fact, closer to capitalism than to communism (except without the free market).
Earth to T2sux! You and your family are part of the collective. If you and your family are suffering, then the community will give you what you need (assuming, of course, the community can provide it). You could be appealing to the strawman I elaborated on above, that communism is a giant corporation (it's not), or perhaps you are simply ignoring the fact that other people exist under capitalism as well, and they will suffer while you and your family live happily ever after. I hope you sleep well.
But (assuming the government is not corrupt) the government doesn't keep it for itself to make a profit. They have a responsibility to distribute it fairly and evenly.
No, but it makes you needy. And the needy are protected.
Poverty exists under capitalism too. What you're talking about is a worst case scenario. You're also only focusing on a single family. Under communism, that family might be hungry. Under capitalism, that family might produce enough to feed itself, but many more poverty striken families will be much worse off.
Ok, fine.
And equally, you have no right to demand support from anyone else. Would you be happy with that arrangement in their shoes?
Anyway.
Eminent domain, which i dislike to begin with, syayes that property may be taken for public use and the owners must be given fair compensation. The problem is that this compensation is never truely fair. For example, I live in an upper-missle class community. most of the homes are on acre+ lots and almost evryopne has pools. My home has a three-teir deck, 2 patios, pool, just under an acre lot, and 3,300 sq. feet, not counting our finished basement. I am not bragging, I am merely giving information to show why eminent domain is unjust.
If my home were for sale, it would easily bring in excess of $500,000. My neighbors moved roughly 5 years ago and had a significantly smaller home and lot, and nothing special as far as pools decks, and additions go. Their home sold for in excess or $350,000 and went to a bidding war. If my home was seized under eminent domain, my parents would get about $100,000, the extreme low-end value for the land alone. Thing slike that would ruin my parents financially, and would prevent me from going to college, as well as both my borthers, simply because there would not be the money for it. This could potentially leave me, and my descendants, at a poverty level of income.
A factory behind my house wants to expand (this part is true) and routinely buys the townships new fire trucks and engages in other forms of bribrery. What keeping 3 generations of my family safe form business.
I honestly feel that this is, at least to some degree, a conspiracy on the part of conservatives/republicans. Big business is esstentially being given free land by the federal government. It is wrong. I think it is high time that the Declaration of Independence be ennacted. If the governement fails the people, the people are allowed to remove said government by whatever means necessary. If it means a second American Revolution, so be it. The government is faling to serve the people it was enstated to protect.
Jet black eyes. Deep thought. Riddles of life unravvel.
If you're not the neediest, by definition, you need less than the neediest. Once the neediest have what they need, the less needy get what they need. Your arguements only apply to severe recession.
What if a whole capitalist country is needy?
It diminishes poverty. It is unrealistic to expect anything to end poverty under all circumstances (although your arguement does leave a question, where do all these severe recessions come from?)
You have access to the Internet and you are using it to discuss the benefits of capitalism. I think it is a reasonable guess that you are not the lowest rung of society.