A difficult question

[Subversive Pessimist]

Let's say you have a Communist society, where everything is free. However, you have stuff that are more rare then others, in example, gold. I think the question is already set.. When things are so rare, how are you going to make everybody happy? I guess the person who runs first into the store will have most of the rare goods.

[Touchstone]

No, incorret. All vauable materials would be destroyed.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Gold is used when building several things.
Diamonds are used in computers.
In some dishes, some rare dust from flowers are used. It tastes good. Are you saying you won't be eating this in a Communist society? :angry:

Also, who are going to do the shitty jobs?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 08:56 PM
Let's say you have a Communist society, where everything is free. However, you have stuff that are more rare then others, in example, gold. I think the question is already set.. When things are so rare, how are you going to make everybody happy? I guess the person who runs first into the store will have most of the rare goods.
What do people need gold for? diamonds etc? People like them ebcause society gives meaning to these objects. Gold and things like this dont have any meaning. They arent important really. In a communist society, people wont need rings anymore because they will have their lives.

[Vinny Rafarino]

No, incorret. All vauable materials would be destroyed.

Why is that?



Are you saying you won't be eating this in a Communist society?



Communists are not allowed to eat. We can only take communal vitamin injections twice daily.



Also, who are going to do the shitty jobs?

There are no shitty jobs, all communist are broken down and re-programmed not to think. Only to do.

I can see all the glorious red jump suits now.

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 07:39 PM
Gold is used when building several things.
Diamonds are used in computers.
In some dishes, some rare dust from flowers are used. It tastes good. Are you saying you won't be eating this in a Communist society? :angry:

Also, who are going to do the shitty jobs?
I might not be the best person to try to tackle this for you, but here goes :D

Gold, although uncommon, is to this day used mainly for jewelry and the like - under my regime these 'trinkets' would not be available, and as such gold would have less 'value'. Diamonds, although very rare, have been synthesized and De Beers (big dutch/south african diamond firm) spent millions of dollars on building a machine simply to detect these fake diamonds - of which might I add the creator could only make 3-4 PER YEAR. Paranoia huh? ;) :D In other words the 'expense' of this item wouldn't be nearly so paralysing once people stop trying to simply grab as much cash as they can.

As for the 'flower dust', it's not a useful commodity exactly, and as such wouldn't be directly available. This doesn't mean I would stop you trying to harvest them though yourself.

Others may have more textbook or even what they consider better answers. These are just mine :)

[STI]

Also, who are going to do the shitty jobs?

Who Will Clear the Sewers? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083202823&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) By redstar2000

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 09:39 PM
Gold is used when building several things.
Diamonds are used in computers.
In some dishes, some rare dust from flowers are used. It tastes good. Are you saying you won't be eating this in a Communist society?
I dont think quyestions like this are really important at the moment. What is important is building a movement to destory capitalism and create communism. These things will be dealt with in what ever way society chooses.


Also, who are going to do the shitty jobs?

We will all do them.

[Capitalist Imperial]

As you can see, some of our comrades have already taken a totalitarian stance and taken it upon themselves to determine what does and not have value.

Already, individual opinions, needs, and preferences mean nothing.

Freedom has already been compromised on something as trivial as a flower.

This is the fundamental flaw of communism, it is rooted in the fundamental rule of economics itself. Humans by nature have unlimited desires, yet the world has limited resources. Thus, as resources are allocated by central authorities, basic freedoms are compromised.

[Osman Ghazi]

I don't know, if you read Redstar's analysis, that seems to be pretty equal and free to me. Definately no authoritarian measures there.

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 7 2004, 08:56 PM
As you can see, some of our comrades have already taken a totalitarian stance and taken it upon themselves to determine what does and not have value.

Already, individual opinions, needs, and preferences mean nothing.

Freedom has already been compromised on something as trivial as a flower.

This is the fundamental flaw of communism, it is rooted in the fundamental rule of economics itself. Humans by nature have unlimited desires, yet the world has limited resources. Thus, as resources are allocated by central authorities, basic freedoms are compromised.
This is the fundemntal flaw of capitalism. It instills the idea that people have unlimited desires, yet our world is depleting in resource and cannot sustain this level of exploitation that the current system dictates.

We need a revolution of the mind.


I dont think quyestions like this are really important at the moment. What is important is building a movement to destory capitalism and create communism. These things will be dealt with in what ever way society chooses

:rolleyes: It's far more important to put forward a logical argument as to how to run things after this 'glorious revolution' I hear so much about than to decide how to gut cappies. That's the easy bit ;)

I also perceive this to be why communism has never taken root. People are naturally skeptical (as far as I am concerned) and require proof before they will join us. Take Russia: although never truly communst, they revolted simply because they thought they were getting something better. As it turned out, it wasn't well planned enough, the leaders took it in directions other than they should have an unsavoury elements started to appear within the Party.

So I think it's incredibly important to discuss how to make communism work rather than how to revolt.

[STI]

Humans by nature have unlimited desires, yet the world has limited resources.

Is this natural, or conditioned?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 09:16 PM

Humans by nature have unlimited desires, yet the world has limited resources.

Is this natural, or conditioned?
I believe it is natural. It is basically a derivative of the survival instinct. We garner as much resources as possible to avoid death and extinction.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 7 2004, 10:56 PM
As you can see, some of our comrades have already taken a totalitarian stance and taken it upon themselves to determine what does and not have value.

Already, individual opinions, needs, and preferences mean nothing.

Freedom has already been compromised on something as trivial as a flower.

This is the fundamental flaw of communism, it is rooted in the fundamental rule of economics itself. Humans by nature have unlimited desires, yet the world has limited resources. Thus, as resources are allocated by central authorities, basic freedoms are compromised.
Where?

[Subversive Pessimist]

I also have another question regarding the proletarian revolution. I don't know a whole lot, so I will ask you this...

In example, during the Russian revolution, wasn't all of the revolutionaries high up, like Trotsky, Lenin etc. from borgeuise families? As far as I remember, the only one from the working class was Stalin...

If so, when has the poorest people in the society gone uprising? I don't think they have time study Marx and Lenin, so I guess it would most likely be someone with a better standard of life, who has to start things going?

[DaCuBaN]

Go look through the history forum - there's plenty of discussions in there on that subject

[STI]

I believe it is natural. It is basically a derivative of the survival instinct. We garner as much resources as possible to avoid death and extinction

Wolves, for example, don't take stockpiles of moose flesh when they don't need it. That's completely natural.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 09:46 PM

I believe it is natural. It is basically a derivative of the survival instinct. We garner as much resources as possible to avoid death and extinction

Wolves, for example, don't take stockpiles of moose flesh when they don't need it. That's completely natural.
They gorge themselves as much as they can when they kill, and keep the carcas until it is depleted.

[lucid]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+May 7 2004, 10:01 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ May 7 2004, 10:01 PM)
[email protected] 7 2004, 09:46 PM

I believe it is natural. It is basically a derivative of the survival instinct. We garner as much resources as possible to avoid death and extinction

Wolves, for example, don't take stockpiles of moose flesh when they don't need it. That's completely natural.
They gorge themselves as much as they can when they kill, and keep the carcas until it is depleted. [/b]
Don't the strongest wolves eat first?

Survival of the fitess.

[STI]

Don't the strongest wolves eat first?

Survival of the fitess.

Social Darwainism has little to do with biology.


They gorge themselves as much as they can when they kill, and keep the carcas until it is depleted.

But one wolf doesn't hold the carcass away in a room and tell the other wolves to 'fuck off' unless they work for him.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 10:55 PM

But one wolf doesn't hold the carcass away in a room and tell the other wolves to 'fuck off' unless they work for him.
actually, with wolves and all social predator groups, the "alpha" eats 1st. if there is plenty to go around, he decides if more can join him, and even then he still eats the best part.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 07:39 PM
Gold is used when building several things.
Diamonds are used in computers.
In some dishes, some rare dust from flowers are used. It tastes good. Are you saying you won't be eating this in a Communist society? :angry:

Also, who are going to do the shitty jobs?
The mighty Raisa has all the answers!

First of all, we are the way we are becasue we have to be this way to suceed in this society. We have a demand upon us.
By the time there is communism, we will be very different. But first we have to get socialism right. So we can make a government that breaks the cylce, and shows the people there is no need to be that way any more. We have to see it to believe it. You will never have real communism immeadiately.

When there is communism, we will be different. It will be a different world. The way our work is valued and the way we look at work will be different. Every one's job should be deterimined by what they feel inclined to do and what they are capable of. Every one has their contribution for civilization. There wont be a shitty job.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 7 2004, 08:56 PM
As you can see, some of our comrades have already taken a totalitarian stance and taken it upon themselves to determine what does and not have value.


Well...its not that im going to tell you "there will be NO gold in communism."
Gold is pretty. but it will neer have the same value because we wont have to scirmish to find fullfillment in these things whos meanings are only created by our unfullfilling society.

..And why dont you think we have totalitarianism now, the world is governed by your belief is it not? Even small children are.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Raisa+May 8 2004, 01:27 AM--> (Raisa @ May 8 2004, 01:27 AM)
Capitalist [email protected] 7 2004, 08:56 PM
As you can see, some of our comrades have already taken a totalitarian stance and taken it upon themselves to determine what does and not have value.


Well...its not that im going to tell you "there will be NO gold in communism."
Gold is pretty. but it will neer have the same value because we wont have to scirmish to find fullfillment in these things whos meanings are only created by our unfullfilling society.

..And why dont you think we have totalitarianism now, the world is governed by your belief is it not? Even small children are. [/b]
But who are you or anyone else to determine what is meaningful or not? Life is often about simple pleasures, and if the world market has deemed that gold has great value, then that is indicative of a majority opinion prevailing.

I don't think a communist revolution anywhere would affect the value of gold any more than normal market fluctuations do.

[DaCuBaN]

Every one's job should be deterimined by what they feel inclined to do and what they are capable of. Every one has their contribution for civilization. There wont be a shitty job

So there IS someone out there who actually wants to shovel shit?


I don't think a communist revolution anywhere would affect the value of gold any more than normal market fluctuations do.

Firstly, this is ALL rhetoric(sp?), but surely a communist revolution on a global scale would negate this point? I think that's what was initially intended in that post...

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+May 8 2004, 01:35 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ May 8 2004, 01:35 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 01:27 AM

Capitalist Im[email protected] 7 2004, 08:56 PM
As you can see, some of our comrades have already taken a totalitarian stance and taken it upon themselves to determine what does and not have value.


Well...its not that im going to tell you "there will be NO gold in communism."
Gold is pretty. but it will neer have the same value because we wont have to scirmish to find fullfillment in these things whos meanings are only created by our unfullfilling society.

..And why dont you think we have totalitarianism now, the world is governed by your belief is it not? Even small children are.
But who are you or anyone else to determine what is meaningful or not? Life is often about simple pleasures, and if the world market has deemed that gold has great value, then that is indicative of a majority opinion prevailing.

I don't think a communist revolution anywhere would affect the value of gold any more than normal market fluctuations do. [/b]
Im not any one to determine the value of anything. But situation makes your opinion. In communism gold will not have the same value because people will not feel the need to look to things like that to fulfill themselves nearly as much as we do now, out of isolation, like they got to make meaning of their life and lifes work by bedecking themselves in gold and lavishing themselves to compensate for the fact that they are always under satisfied in this society in order for it to run.

What the ritchest man acquires in all his life savings is nothing compared to what we get from working together.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 7 2004, 09:05 PM
I don't know, if you read Redstar's analysis, that seems to be pretty equal and free to me. Definately no authoritarian measures there.

In other words, there will be rationing...to make sure that everyone gets an approximately equal share.

Rationing is authoritarian.

[redstar2000]

Rationing is authoritarian.

So is your market; it rations goods and services according to disposable income.

As to gold, there is a proposal attributed to Lenin that may be useful. He suggested that the world's gold supply be used to make toilet seats...the metal is easy to keep clean and feels warm to the human buttocks.

Worth looking into, perhaps? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 02:42 PM

Rationing is authoritarian.

So is your market; it rations goods and services according to disposable income.

As to gold, there is a proposal attributed to Lenin that may be useful. He suggested that the world's gold supply be used to make toilet seats...the metal is easy to keep clean and feels warm to the human buttocks.

Worth looking into, perhaps? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I'm still confused by this. How did Lenin know? Did he rub gold on his ass for fun or something?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Gold wouldn't need to be "rationed" or "banned," without a market gold would only be a use-value not an exchange-vlaue. There are other materials which can serve the purpose of gold, jewelry would almost cetainly be made of materials which look like gold; just as pretty but easier to make.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Another interesting question I came up with, was tourism.

Let's say, in example, you live in Communist France. You have some relatives in the capitalist US, and the the American family wants to visit their relatives in France. If they're going to go to France, and no money exist in that society, how are the Americans going to get food? The only logical answer I have, is that he can't, without exploiting the French society.
The same goes for the French if they are going to visit, let's say, Germany. They don't have money, in other words, they can't survive in that country.

[Professor Moneybags]

So is your market; it rations goods and services according to disposable income.

Purchasing according to disposable income isn't "rationing". You are using equivocation.


Let's say, in example, you live in Communist France. You have some relatives in the capitalist US, and the the American family wants to visit their relatives in France. If they're going to go to France, and no money exist in that society, how are the Americans going to get food? The only logical answer I have, is that he can't, without exploiting the French society.
The same goes for the French if they are going to visit, let's say, Germany. They don't have money, in other words, they can't survive in that country.

Just replace "food" with anything you like (healthcare, public transport). It shows the unsustainable nature of a socialist economy. A country where everything is free is like a reastaurant where all food is free; bankrupcy is only a matter of time.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Tourists would probably just be given food or whatever so long as there wasn't a shortage, preferably the whole world would be communist.

[Osman Ghazi]

Purchasing according to disposable income isn't "rationing". You are using equivocation.


How so? It is a limit on the amount of things you can have that is imposed on society. Rationing is a limit on the amount of things you can have imposed on society. They are one and the same. The only difference is that the more cashola you were born with, the less harsh the rationing is.

[Osman Ghazi]

Purchasing according to disposable income isn't "rationing". You are using equivocation.


How so? It is a limit on the amount of things you can have that is imposed on society. Rationing is a limit on the amount of things you can have imposed on society. They are one and the same. The only difference is that the more cashola you were born with, the less harsh the rationing is.


Just replace "food" with anything you like (healthcare, public transport). It shows the unsustainable nature of a socialist economy. A country where everything is free is like a reastaurant where all food is free; bankrupcy is only a matter of time.

What the hell are you talking about? A country isn't anything like a restaurant. A restaurant has an owner whereas a country (well a communist one anyways) does not. That is a pretty simple analogy. It would kind of resemble a restaurant if everyone had an equal share in the ownership of it.

Not to mention that thinking that everything is 'free' is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. In these countries, they pay taxes. It is not free at all.

[Roses in the Hospital]

I don't think it's an issue to be honest. These days people mostly buy gold and the like because it looks pretty, not because of it's value, and gold (of varying qualities) seems so common that there's not really any elitism about it's possesion any more...
Under Communism I don't think gold would be treated any differently to anything else...people could simply ask for it when they need it (for wedding rings etc.) and it would be distributed accordingly. Obviously the temptation to simply stock up on 'free gold' would be removed as for communism to work the desires of greed would have to be eliminated anyway. And of course there would be no material value in it because people would simply be able to get it for free anyway...

[John Galt]

Who would create public works like the national highway system in communism?

[Subversive Pessimist]

Tourists would probably just be given food or whatever so long as there wasn't a shortage

I see economy isn't your strong point. Think of 8 million tourists. You'll be destroying the whole "economy"-

[Subversive Pessimist]

Who's going to do the city planning? Today it's parties and the state. Who's going to plan how the city is going to look? Who's going to make deal with difficult issues that will come up? Who?

[Rasta Sapian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 09:39 PM
I also have another question regarding the proletarian revolution. I don't know a whole lot, so I will ask you this...

In example, during the Russian revolution, wasn't all of the revolutionaries high up, like Trotsky, Lenin etc. from borgeuise families? As far as I remember, the only one from the working class was Stalin...

If so, when has the poorest people in the society gone uprising? I don't think they have time study Marx and Lenin, so I guess it would most likely be someone with a better standard of life, who has to start things going?
its seems you are misunderstanding the cause a little bit,

the revolution will be that of the masses (workers, both unionized and un-unionized, people of the middle and lower classes, seeking equality of all classes )

So yes, people in oppositon would have to be impirialist in nature ie. business owners, and high level corperate slaves dependant on independence!

This would be a new change to socialist order, something never seen before in the neuveau moderized industrial-technological age in which we live!
not like Russia was 100 years ago..... can i getta tzar to the say what? :blink:

Resources and wealth (not in terms of monetary funds) could be shared to benifet us all=eventually worldwide famine and draught can be prevented and Utopia can arise! you were talking about bougousie wealth ie.gold and other such valued items, which yes would be initially expropriated by the new order, not nessisarily destroyed, but rather put to better use ie. traded for food or building material, used in the construction of new buildings. but basically divided equally to help support all of the people.

peace yall

[Rasta Sapian]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 9 2004, 03:56 PM
Who would create public works like the national highway system in communism?
R U volenteering my friend? :)

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Rasta Sapian+May 9 2004, 04:41 PM--> (Rasta Sapian @ May 9 2004, 04:41 PM)
John [email protected] 9 2004, 03:56 PM
Who would create public works like the national highway system in communism?
R U volenteering my friend? :) [/b]
No. I have no knowledge of how to build a durable road, nor do I have the motivation to do so.

Anyway, such a project requires central management to decide

A)Where it goes
B)Its dimensions
C)How to best maintain it
D)What rules shall be on it?


D- IOW speed limits, car size, etc.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:56 PM
Let's say you have a Communist society, where everything is free. However, you have stuff that are more rare then others, in example, gold. I think the question is already set.. When things are so rare, how are you going to make everybody happy? I guess the person who runs first into the store will have most of the rare goods.
Is gold really useful? Not really. I think there's a need to find better uses for it. Gold is just to show off. If you like jewels and such thing, just make them yourself. With some imagination gold can be used for lots of things.


Also, who are going to do the shitty jobs?

Criminals, machines, cappies, everyone. It would be distributed in that order.


As you can see, some of our comrades have already taken a totalitarian stance and taken it upon themselves to determine what does and not have value.

Oh, because the "free market" establishes "value" according to "what the people want"! Of course, because as we know people really need gold to survive!


Already, individual opinions, needs, and preferences mean nothing.

That depends.


Freedom has already been compromised on something as trivial as a flower.

This is the fundamental flaw of communism, it is rooted in the fundamental rule of economics itself. Humans by nature have unlimited desires, yet the world has limited resources. Thus, as resources are allocated by central authorities, basic freedoms are compromised.

Capitalist books say that humans have "unlimited needs" and you changed it to "desires". You might be right to an extent. But the problem here is that some people take things and claim to "own" them, thus the "desires" or "needs" are limited. It's funny because there are some things that make no sense. Why would somebody want to have a golden ring? Unless it has a chances of being traded by a good price, there's no real point on having such a useless thing. Oh, sure, "it looks good", SO WHAT??? "But I have the freedom to own one!" Not when private corporations own them and try to sell them to you at a profit just because "they arrived first".


Don't the strongest wolves eat first?

Survival of the fitess.

How can you determinate that a wolf is "strongest" than the rest, especially being a wolf? This social darwinism doesn't have a good basis. It's based around the capitalist society: there's an "alpha male" which "rules the rest", just because "we have leaders". The truth is, you can never completely know how wolves think. Plus animals usually cooperate when they need to, especially when the environment is very hard.

Anyway, I'm sure these two agree with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/c/c4/Hitlermusso.jpg


As to gold, there is a proposal attributed to Lenin that may be useful. He suggested that the world's gold supply be used to make toilet seats...the metal is easy to keep clean and feels warm to the human buttocks.

Excellent idea. Maybe we could figure out how to take energy out of it or something like that. That would be a great use.


Let's say, in example, you live in Communist France. You have some relatives in the capitalist US, and the the American family wants to visit their relatives in France. If they're going to go to France, and no money exist in that society, how are the Americans going to get food? The only logical answer I have, is that he can't, without exploiting the French society.
The same goes for the French if they are going to visit, let's say, Germany. They don't have money, in other words, they can't survive in that country.

You request somebody to give you something and you sell it to a foreign country. You bring food with you. Or you ask somebody to arrange things with those in the country you're going to. Or you promote a revolution in that country. Or you print fake money. Or you could, following what I posted about up there concerning what redstar mentioned, take some gold and trade it. If you're smart you will figure out many other ways of doing this.


Purchasing according to disposable income isn't "rationing". You are using equivocation.

I think he meant to say that the market is authoritarian.


Just replace "food" with anything you like (healthcare, public transport). It shows the unsustainable nature of a socialist economy. A country where everything is free is like a reastaurant where all food is free; bankrupcy is only a matter of time.

Who said you would be allowed to eat everything in a restaurant? Those working there would establish limits.


Who's going to do the city planning? Today it's parties and the state. Who's going to plan how the city is going to look? Who's going to make deal with difficult issues that will come up? Who?


Who would create public works like the national highway system in communism?

People will gather in assemblies everytime there's a need for something from such importance.
There's no need for central management. You just say your ideas, people discusses in small groups and then a voting process happens. The best idea wins. Based on that idea changes can be made to reach some consensus.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 9 2004, 04:59 PM
People will gather in assemblies everytime there's a need for something from such importance.
There's no need for central management. You just say your ideas, people discusses in small groups and then a voting process happens. The best idea wins. Based on that idea changes can be made to reach some consensus.
So now everytime something needs to be decided everyone has to come to a consensus?

Talk about govermental inefficiency.

And how will the public know which proposal is best? They dont. And who organizes these groups? Believe me, any meeting without a chairman directing the discussion turns into madness.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 9 2004, 07:28 PM
Believe me, any meeting without a chairman directing the discussion turns into madness.
No. People who have come to the decision that something needs to be done, organize the appropriate people to meet and discuss. Of course anyone is entitled to be involved in the decision making process. But if you were making a road for example in the south of england, peoiple in Scotland wouldnt need, and I assume, want to be involved in such a process. In fact, I would suggest that 90% of the people involved in the decision making process would be people who were involved in the actual creation of the road. Deciding you need a road isnt the difficult part. It is organizing how you build it which is complicated. That is what these groups would determine.


Talk about govermental inefficiency.

I thought it was called democracy.


And how will the public know which proposal is best?

We are talking about building a road right...


They dont.

People will not make a plan which is ineffective, and if it is, then the group discuss it and organize it until it isnt. Simply!


And who organizes these groups?

Who ever decides a road needs to be built.


Believe me, any meeting without a chairman directing the discussion turns into madness.

Maybe because the people you wer ein a meeting with were rude, obnoxious, arrogant attention seekers who couldnt behave properly.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Thanks for the answers... Still, I'm wondering about this one...

Let's say, in example, you live in Communist France. You have some relatives in the capitalist US, and the the American family wants to visit their relatives in France. If they're going to go to France, and no money exist in that society, how are the Americans going to get food? The only logical answer I have, is that he can't, without exploiting the French society.
The same goes for the French if they are going to visit, let's say, Germany. They don't have money, in other words, they can't survive in that country, unless they exploit the people in that particular country.

[John Galt]

Believe me, any meeting without a chairman directing the discussion turns into madness.
No. People who have come to the decision that something needs to be done, organize the appropriate people to meet and discuss. Of course anyone is entitled to be involved in the decision making process. But if you were making a road for example in the south of england, peoiple in Scotland wouldnt need, and I assume, want to be involved in such a process. In fact, I would suggest that 90% of the people involved in the decision making process would be people who were involved in the actual creation of the road. Deciding you need a road isnt the difficult part. It is organizing how you build it which is complicated. That is what these groups would determine.

Ok, I say my road needs work. Who gets to discuss it? The people on my road, the people in my town, the people in my state?




Talk about govermental inefficiency.

I thought it was called democracy.


Democracy is inefficient. A republic combines the benefits of democracy with greater efficiency.





And how will the public know which proposal is best?

We are talking about building a road right...

Yes. Of course, if you want we can change it to a nuclear reactor.

They dont.



People will not make a plan which is ineffective, and if it is, then the group discuss it and organize it until it isnt. Simply!

Comittees are by nature inefficient. Lets say we are both in a meeting. I am totally wrong, you are totally right. The measure needs 51% vote to pass. I persuade 33% to agree with me. You persuade 33% to go with you. The remaining 34% want a 3rd proposal that we both agree is bad. You, even though are right, must change your proposal to steal votes away from me and the other guy. That means your proposal is no longer completely correct.





And who organizes these groups?

Who ever decides a road needs to be built.

And who is that?





Believe me, any meeting without a chairman directing the discussion turns into madness.

Maybe because the people you wer ein a meeting with were rude, obnoxious, arrogant attention seekers who couldnt behave properly.
[/quote]

Thus communism fails. I go to many meetings. If everyone is like that, why the hell would it be different in a meeting about how to best build a road?

[John Galt]

Why arent the quote tags working?

[The Feral Underclass]

mnake them work..its impossible trying to reply...you have made a mistake somewhere.

[John Galt]

"" Believe me, any meeting without a chairman directing the discussion turns into madness.“
No. People who have come to the decision that something needs to be done, organize the appropriate people to meet and discuss. Of course anyone is entitled to be involved in the decision making process. But if you were making a road for example in the south of england, peoiple in Scotland wouldnt need, and I assume, want to be involved in such a process. In fact, I would suggest that 90% of the people involved in the decision making process would be people who were involved in the actual creation of the road. Deciding you need a road isnt the difficult part. It is organizing how you build it which is complicated. That is what these groups would determine.“

Ok, I say my road needs work. Who gets to discuss it? The people on my road, the people in my town, the people in my state?

““Talk about govermental inefficiency.”

I thought it was called democracy.“

Democracy is inefficient. A republic combines the benefits of democracy with greater efficiency.

““And how will the public know which proposal is best?”
We are talking about building a road right...“

Yes. Of course, if you want we can change it to a nuclear reactor.


“People will not make a plan which is ineffective, and if it is, then the group discuss it and organize it until it isnt. Simply!“

Comittees are by nature inefficient. Lets say we are both in a meeting. I am totally wrong, you are totally right. The measure needs 51% vote to pass. I persuade 33% to agree with me. You persuade 33% to go with you. The remaining 34% want a 3rd proposal that we both agree is bad. You, even though are right, must change your proposal to steal votes away from me and the other guy. That means your proposal is no longer completely correct.


““And who organizes these groups?”

Who ever decides a road needs to be built.“

And who is that?


““ Believe me, any meeting without a chairman directing the discussion turns into madness.”

Maybe because the people you wer ein a meeting with were rude, obnoxious, arrogant attention seekers who couldnt behave properly.”“

Thus communism fails. I go to many meetings. If everyone is like that, why the hell would it be different in a meeting about how to best build a road?





I replaced the quote tags with apostraphes.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Who builds roads work in your ideal LF capitalist state?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 08:06 PM
Who builds roads work in your ideal LF capitalist state?
What does LF stand for?

In United $$$tates of Amerikkka the government does.

[DaCuBaN]

Lassaiez Faire(sp?) I assume... abbr. tends to appear when things are a bugger to spell ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 9 2004, 09:56 PM
Ok, I say my road needs work. Who gets to discuss it? The people on my road, the people in my town, the people in my state?
The people responsable for taking care of roads.


Democracy is inefficient. A republic combines the benefits of democracy with greater efficiency.

The state is not and can not be democratic and actually capitalism and the state are extremly inefficient, otherwise we wouldnt have poverty would we, or people who were unemployed. Democracy in the sense of people being able to affect decisions in their lives may take time, but I think it is time well justified.


Comittees are by nature inefficient. Lets say we are both in a meeting. I am totally wrong, you are totally right. The measure needs 51% vote to pass. I persuade 33% to agree with me. You persuade 33% to go with you. The remaining 34% want a 3rd proposal that we both agree is bad. You, even though are right, must change your proposal to steal votes away from me and the other guy. That means your proposal is no longer completely correct.

Co-operation between human beings is not about winning votes. It is about discussing, rationally with each other possibilities for progressing. It is not about egos but about what is best. If your plan is better than mine then we change it. If I think that a certain aspect of your proposel is absurd, then we debate it, we look at the facts, and we make an objective decision, as collegues, not rivals and we try and do what we think is best. If it fails, we try again. That is the basis of human development. You try, and if you fail, you try again, until you get it right.

It may also be that the people involved in making this road have no experience in building one, and therefore those who do are left to organize how to do it. You may have knowledge on how to build a road, I may not. Who should I listen to? Myself or someone who knows what they are doing? If you say, that idea wont work, then 99% you are right and I am wrong. That's how you work with people. Rationally and logically.


And who is that?

Presumably communities would have there own regular open meetings where things can be proposed and discussed. At these meetings qurestions such as "dont you think we need a new road from A to B" would be discussed. Delegates would be elected from people who would volunteer and thus begins the process.


Thus communism fails. I go to many meetings. If everyone is like that, why the hell would it be different in a meeting about how to best build a road?

Everyone is not like that though. I also go to meetings where people can respect each others right to speak, follow an agenda and are not vying for attention, but simply to make their point so a debate can progress. Calmly, rationally and respectfully....imagine that :o

[Subversive Pessimist]

It would be greatly preciated if someone would care to answer my question regarding tourism. Thanks :)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 08:16 PM
Let's say, in example, you live in Communist France. You have some relatives in the capitalist US,
I doubt very much that a country could be fully integrated into a communism if the biggest capitalist country and fundamental opposer of communism still existed. I assume that if the US was still capitalist and was not on its way out, the revolution in France would most likly have been a Leninist one, in which case it wouldnt be communism, but Socialism.


the American family wants to visit their relatives in France. If they're going to go to France, and no money exist in that society, how are the Americans going to get food?

Money would probably still exist for a good few years after a revolution, and for a socialist state such as the one which would develop out of the situation you have described, money would still be used for possibly decades afterwards. A moneyless country could not exist in a capitalist world it would be impractical and probably near impossible, unless your country wanted to revert back to primitive times. In many communities in Bhutan and even in Mozambique money is not used, but the actual standard of living in these communities is non existent.

A moneyless society would come after years of social, economic and political re organization which would have to be after the main economic and political countries had moved to the final stage of history and removed the ruling class from power. At this point trade, economic productivity awould be for socially necessary purposes rather than profit, in which case the exchange of goods and items would be due to administrative purposes rather than money making. Which makes money redundent.


The only logical answer I have, is that he can't, without exploiting the French society.

Let us say that the west had gone through this transitional stage and was fully communist. If your friends or family visited you from America then youn would just feed them the way you normally would. It is not exploiting the countries resources. Your friends have come to visit you and you feed them. Your community is not going to shoot you for it.


The same goes for the French if they are going to visit, let's say, Germany. They don't have money, in other words, they can't survive in that country, unless they exploit the people in that particular country.

There is nothing exploitative about feeding someone. If you saw a man on the streets and they were hungry and you had some food would you not give some of the food to that person. It is just the same. If someone came to see you and they had no food, you would feed them...Get the to wash up or something if you think they should return the favour...

[Subversive Pessimist]

Thank's for the reply.

However, I believe the definition of exploiting is:
To live, solely, or holy on other peoples labor.

If you have a society that everything is free, I'm sure a lot of people would take time off and move to that country on holiday. If you have 5 million tourists, this would damage the society, because you have to feed them, while the Communist society will suffer because of tourism.

I think there would be strict laws and regulations, on what you can bring home to the capitalist country, in order to reduse the explotation, or whatever you want to call it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 04:08 PM
If you have a society that everything is free, I'm sure a lot of people would take time off and move to that country on holiday.
Time off from what?


If you have 5 million tourists, this would damage the society, because you have to feed them, while the Communist society will suffer because of tourism.

There would be no nations in a communists society. There would just be the world, and if you decided to travel it then that is your choice. I am not sure how your food supplies would be organized but I am sure your community would come to some kind of agreement with you. I am sure travelling would be pretty much how it is now. Maybe there are communes, or hostels that have been set up for travellers, but I am sure you would be able to find somewhere to stay where ever you went.


I think there would be strict laws and regulations, on what you can bring home to the capitalist country, in order to reduse the explotation, or whatever you want to call it.

Like I said before if major capitalist countries still existed it would be very difficult to create a full communist society. If these capitalist countries, lets say America were not going to make the change also, then I feel that the revolution in another country would most likly be leninist, in which case a moneyless society would not exist so your argument is irrelevant.

A communist world can not exist until the major western countries have removed the ruling class and a moneyless society is a well inegrated communist world. There can be no moneyless society if there are strong and powerful capitalist countries.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 9 2004, 08:08 PM
What does LF stand for?

In United $$$tates of Amerikkka the government does.
Laissez-Faire, considering your name i presume you're an objecivist.

Who do you think should build roads? Obviously the government couldn't do so as it would be contradictory to the free-market.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Let me put it a slightly different way, so you might understand.

If you have a society that everything is free, I'm sure a lot of people from the capitalist world would take time off and move to the Communist country on holiday.

But as I agree with the thought that there can't be no Communist state if there are major capitalist nations still in control, so no answer is needed, really.

[Osman Ghazi]

Justice, you must understand that Communism and Capitalism are irreconcilable. Only one of them can exist at a time. Capitalism and Socialism, however can co-exist, though logically they will attempt to destroy each other. However, you still get paid in a socialist society and you still spend that money on the things you need. And so if tourists visited a socialist country, they would still spend money on the things they needed, like a capitalist society.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+May 10 2004, 04:44 PM--> (Misodoctakleidist @ May 10 2004, 04:44 PM)
John [email protected] 9 2004, 08:08 PM
What does LF stand for?

In United $$$tates of Amerikkka the government does.
Laissez-Faire, considering your name i presume you're an objecivist.

Who do you think should build roads? Obviously the government couldn't do so as it would be contradictory to the free-market. [/b]
No, I just chose the name because it is appropriate.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 10 2004, 07:48 PM
No, I just chose the name because it is appropriate.
How is it appropriate if your not an objectivist.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+May 10 2004, 07:54 PM--> (Misodoctakleidist @ May 10 2004, 07:54 PM)
John [email protected] 10 2004, 07:48 PM
No, I just chose the name because it is appropriate.
How is it appropriate if your not an objectivist. [/b]
I chose it to give you all the shits.


Iirc, when my board came over to here, we all chose Atlas shrugged names. Francisco D'Anaconia and Hank Rearden also used to post here.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 06:50 PM
Let me put it a slightly different way, so you might understand.
I understand your quesiton. The problem is you do not have a grasp of communist theory which makes your questions confusing and irrelevant.


If you have a society that everything is free, I'm sure a lot of people from the capitalist world would take time off and move to the Communist country on holiday.

..........


But as I agree with the thought that there can't be no Communist state if there are major capitalist nations still in control, so no answer is needed, really.

[The Feral Underclass]

John Galt...are you going to answer my points?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 06:50 PM
Communist state
This is an oxymoron. Communism is a concept of a society where the state does not exist.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 9 2004, 05:28 PM
So now everytime something needs to be decided everyone has to come to a consensus?
Not necessarily. People will tend to participate when they feel their interests can be benefitted. Some people will tend to take part more frequently, others won't care too much, unless they feel they need to. Sometimes the most accepted option will win.


Talk about govermental inefficiency.

That's what Mussolini probably thought. Leaving that aside, it's not like a million people will go to the same place, argue screaming when they should come to a decision on a few hours. Not everyone will take part, people will be divided in different groups and technology can help if it doesnt fall in the wrong hands.


And how will the public know which proposal is best?

Before voting discussions can be held. There could be different proposals to carry a project, everyone sees/hears/reads the arguments, then votes. Education should start getting oriented towards teaching kids to be responsible, held debates, understand how different problems affect them, etc.


They dont.

They probably will. If they don't then they will learn from their experiences.


And who organizes these groups? Believe me, any meeting without a chairman directing the discussion turns into madness.

That's true. Moderators should exist. I don't have a problem with them. Some people could work on the way to spread information about things that should be discussed or in keeping information about each meeting, etc.


I thought it was called democracy.

For them democracy is having corporations governing entire countries and monolopizing everything, and sometimes with fascist dictators.

[DaCuBaN]

Moderators should exist

I've always thought some kind of jury-esque system would suit this - in other words you get 'called up' to moderation every once in a while - maybe only once in your lifetime.

Again though, without technology this has its constraints.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+May 8 2004, 08:29 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ May 8 2004, 08:29 AM)
[email protected] 7 2004, 09:16 PM

Humans by nature have unlimited desires, yet the world has limited resources.

Is this natural, or conditioned?
I believe it is natural. It is basically a derivative of the survival instinct. We garner as much resources as possible to avoid death and extinction. [/b]
I believe that it is conditioned. If everyone had access to what they needed, and access to what they wanted (which is harder to achieve) people wouldn't want as much.

It's like drugs, while marijuana is illegal it has an aura around it. Kids use it because it is illegal and want to fight authority. If you legalise it, while the number of people who try it may go up, the number of people using it on a regular basis will go down (compare cigarettes). This won't happen however, if you have campaigns to get everyone to use it.

People do follow the crowd (not all but most people do). So saying that people are sheep is a good analogy. There is a leader who runs one way, one or two others follow the leader, and more do so until you have a whole heap of sheep running in one direction. But you also have one or two sheep or piss off the other way, these are the ones that are hard to control, and these are the ones that get eaten or shot on my father's farm. And the loners in society, they may not get shot but I am sure that many of you know what happens to them.

[DaCuBaN]

Wolves....

Most of your post fits in with the goat analogy - driven rather than led - as well, which personally I prefer. People don't tend to just blindly follow people - it may not take much but generally they have some kind of incentive - even if it's simply being whipped into a frenzy by a clever speaker.

[John Galt]

Castro is giving a speech at the Revolution Square and says: "Comrades, God willing, this year we will have enough eggs for all the Cuban people!" At which point his brother Raúl leans over and says to him: "But Fidel, we are Communists, there is no God." To which Fidel responds in a whisper: "Don't worry. There are no eggs either."




Clinton, Yeltsin, and Fidel arrive in Rio de Janeiro to see Shusha, the famous star of Brazilian TV, each intending to propose marriage. The maid tells Shusha that three very famous men had arrived to ask for her hand in marriage. Undecided, Shusha asks the maid which one she should choose.

"Choose the one in the green suit with the beard," advises the maid. "I've heard that he is very rich, has many houses and estates, owns a whole island, and has millions of slaves."



# Is communism a science?
-No. If it were, they would've tried it on dogs first.



#

# What was the nationality of Adam and Eve?
-Russian of course. Why else would they think they're in Paradise when they were homeless, naked, and just had one apple for both of them?




#

# When was the first Russian election held?
-The time that God set Eve in front of Adam and said, "Go ahead, choose your wife."




# Brezhnev complains to Gromiko that he can't get used to summer and winter time changes.
- It's simple, replies Gromiko. Just move the hands on your clock one hour ahead in spring, and then move them one hour back in autumn.
- Well, says Breznev, that sounds really simple. Nevertheless, when I sent a telegram of my condolences to Egypt regarding Anwar Sadat's assasination last summer, it arrived one hour before his death.

[The Feral Underclass]

So are you going to reply to my post or not Galt?