Why communism really wouldn't work [Archive]

Lord Testicles

12th September 2006, 23:45

Originally posted by patton+Sep 12 2006, 09:38 PM--> (patton @ Sep 12 2006, 09:38 PM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 06:34 PM
Ok here is the issue at the heart of it. COmmunsimm advocates quality. yet the issue here is how does it spread aroudn equally when theres not enough for all?
Exactly like the Soviet Union did the party gets first pick while the average soviet gets shit one. [/b]
We keep harping on about a stateless, classless society but you lot dont seem to get it, and keep bringing up the USSR.

You need to think up something new and innovative, Isn't that what they taught you in business studies?

Lord Testicles

12th September 2006, 23:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 09:51 PM
The average store had lines out the doors and nothing on the shelves, but the party had special stores with no lines and full shelves.
You just don't get it, do you?

theraven

13th September 2006, 02:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 06:41 PM
Rubbish. There's plenty for everyone. And if at some point there isn't, we'll make sure that you aren't around to lighten the load.
no theres really not enough for al. maybe enough basics of food but to live waht is cosnidered a decent middle class life today is unattainbel in modern circsumtances in a totally equal society

Oh, yeah, there is enough for everyone. Do you feel better now that you said that? Are you more comfortable now? Too bad, you're a liar. Stop posting that shit.

there is enough? really? for some reason im doubting this. there is enough food probably, thats merely an issue of distrubutio, and it is because of capilsim that so much id produced

theraven

13th September 2006, 03:00

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 12 2006, 07:09 PM
This is boring; troll properly. We don't keep you here for nothing.
no this is the trurth, you keep me around because you know I am right,

ZX3

13th September 2006, 03:02

Originally posted by Skinz+Sep 12 2006, 08:46 PM--> (Skinz @ Sep 12 2006, 08:46 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 09:38 PM

[email protected] 12 2006, 06:34 PM
Ok here is the issue at the heart of it. COmmunsimm advocates quality. yet the issue here is how does it spread aroudn equally when theres not enough for all?
Exactly like the Soviet Union did the party gets first pick while the average soviet gets shit one.
We keep harping on about a stateless, classless society but you lot dont seem to get it, and keep bringing up the USSR.

You need to think up something new and innovative, Isn't that what they taught you in business studies? [/b]
Except when you folks are harping about nationalising industry and strengthening the power of government to fight those wascally capitalists.

somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback

13th September 2006, 03:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:03 AM
Except when you folks are harping about nationalising industry and strengthening the power of government to fight those wascally capitalists.
Yeah, nationalising industry so it come under the people's control instead of the happy few, OMG that's so authoritarian! :lol:
The second comment is not even worth replying to, but here you go:

STRENGTHENING THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT?? WE'RE TRYING TO DISBAND THE GOVERNMENT YOU FRIGGIN IDIOT!!

;)

ZX3

13th September 2006, 03:23

Originally posted by s3rna+Sep 13 2006, 12:08 AM--> (s3rna @ Sep 13 2006, 12:08 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:03 AM
Except when you folks are harping about nationalising industry and strengthening the power of government to fight those wascally capitalists.
Yeah, nationalising industry so it come under the people's control instead of the happy few, OMG that's so authoritarian! :lol:
The second comment is not even worth replying to, but here you go:

STRENGTHENING THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT?? WE'RE TRYING TO DISBAND THE GOVERNMENT YOU FRIGGIN IDIOT!!

;) [/b]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:03 AM
Except when you folks are harping about nationalising industry and strengthening the power of government to fight those wascally capitalists.
Yeah, nationalising industry so it come under the people's control instead of the happy few, OMG that's so authoritarian! :lol:
The second comment is not even worth replying to, but here you go:

STRENGTHENING THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT?? WE'RE TRYING TO DISBAND THE GOVERNMENT YOU FRIGGIN IDIOT!!

;)

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:03 AM
Except when you folks are harping about nationalising industry and strengthening the power of government to fight those wascally capitalists.
Yeah, nationalising industry so it come under the people's control instead of the happy few, OMG that's so authoritarian! :lol:
The second comment is not even worth replying to, but here you go:

STRENGTHENING THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT?? WE'RE TRYING TO DISBAND THE GOVERNMENT YOU FRIGGIN IDIOT!!

;)

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:08 AM

[email protected] 13 2006, 01:03 AM
Except when you folks are harping about nationalising industry and strengthening the power of government to fight those wascally capitalists.
Yeah, nationalising industry so it come under the people's control instead of the happy few, OMG that's so authoritarian! :lol:
The second comment is not even worth replying to, but here you go:

STRENGTHENING THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT?? WE'RE TRYING TO DISBAND THE GOVERNMENT YOU FRIGGIN IDIOT!!

;)

Yeah! Let's increase the power of government so that we can dismantle it.

:lol:

Give me a freaking break.

somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback

13th September 2006, 03:27

You never cease to amuse me ^_^

colonelguppy

13th September 2006, 08:49

Originally posted by Love Underground+Sep 12 2006, 02:19 PM--> (Love Underground @ Sep 12 2006, 02:19 PM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 07:16 PM
the issue isn't that there isn't enough for everyone but rather the logistical troubles of distribution
We'll use planes. And lorrys. and maybe even Boats.

as well as deciding who gets to decide about further economic ventures.

Everyone. [/b]
how exactly?

encephalon

13th September 2006, 09:03

how exactly?

The same way a few fat rich men decide what gets produced today: whatever is in our own interest, that's what we produce.

Sevilliano

13th September 2006, 11:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:04 AM

how exactly?

The same way a few fat rich men decide what gets produced today: whatever is in our own interest, that's what we produce.
Those "few fat rich men" usually aren't a very diverse group, and have little trouble deciding what's in their best interests. However a community of 1000, or a large area of one million will likely have very conflicting views. Do you then go with the decision of the 51%?

encephalon

13th September 2006, 11:52

Those "few fat rich men" usually aren't a very diverse group, and have little trouble deciding what's in their best interests. However a community of 1000, or a large area of one million will likely have very conflicting views. Do you then go with the decision of the 51%?

Those few fat rich men have a single interest: personal profit. This is what drives whatever it is they decide should be produced. They weigh the good with the bad, and go with the best bet.

The same is true with a thousand: if they all control the means of production and no single person profits at the expense of another, then it isn't an issue of profit--it's an issue of needs and wants of society as a whole. Now, while there are idiot capitalists here who claim there's no such thing as need and it's all a matter of want, those of us in the real world know we need food. We know that we need shelter. We know that people in wheelchairs generally need accomodation, and so on. For such a system, I'll even say that a need would be the proper access for taking part in the system--but aside from that, it's only the privileged that confuse need with want. Needs are not really that debatable, and I see little conflict between a thousand people with equal access about whether or not they need food.

The question of wants remain, however.. and really, there seems to be very little difficulty with that, either. In capitalism, people "vote" for their wants with dollars. Those who want something without enough votes simply do not get what they want. The concept is exactly the same post-capitalism, except each person is represented equally.

Of course, I'm leaving out a significant portion of the technological aspect of this; that is, I'm leaving out the fact that in a mere century, technology will be so vast that such "production by concensus" might be entirely unnecessary. At some point--and I think this is something even capitalists might hope for--obtaining what you want might be a simple matter of downloading schematics and plugging them into a computer, community or personal, with very little human labor involved. But I've left this out of my argument because, frankly, in the current paradigm it seems unrealistic even to a lot of communists, and technological futurism in a particular manner as such is a futile endeavor. We cannot reliably know where technology will lead. If it were half as successful as Ray Kurzweil says, we'd all be driving rockets to our jobs on the moon and be back in time for dinner.

RevolutionaryMarxist

13th September 2006, 12:05

Originally posted by theraven+Sep 13 2006, 12:01 AM--> (theraven @ Sep 13 2006, 12:01 AM)
Love [email protected] 12 2006, 07:09 PM
This is boring; troll properly. We don't keep you here for nothing.
no this is the trurth, you keep me around because you know I am right, [/b]
if u were right and communism is wrong, why would we , being communists, allow you to exist on this forum?...

And on that original supply and demand question - "From each according to his or her own ability to each according to his or her own need"

everyone takes as much as they need/desire.

And don't complain theres "not enough" - even now we see a ENORMOUS surplus in food and goods, and thats with half our population sitting at computers eating food and never making it. If even a portion of those who are now in poverty (Thus sometimes non-working) and these white coller workers were transformed to farming occupations, there would be enough food and goods for everyone.

To prevent greed = theres only so much you can put into your pockets at one time, and other people will see you and get pissed off at you, and you will be shunned.

A Perfect example of this (Ironically) is at fast food restraunts - even though you could save dozens of dollers by stealing those ketchup and mustard bags and straws and napkins, you don't do you? Cause you don't wanna look like a total idiot.

theraven

13th September 2006, 16:41

Originally posted by RevolutionaryMarxist+Sep 13 2006, 09:06 AM--> (RevolutionaryMarxist @ Sep 13 2006, 09:06 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:01 AM

Love [email protected] 12 2006, 07:09 PM
This is boring; troll properly. We don't keep you here for nothing.
no this is the trurth, you keep me around because you know I am right,
if u were right and communism is wrong, why would we , being communists, allow you to exist on this forum?...

And on that original supply and demand question - "From each according to his or her own ability to each according to his or her own need"

everyone takes as much as they need/desire.

And don't complain theres "not enough" - even now we see a ENORMOUS surplus in food and goods, and thats with half our population sitting at computers eating food and never making it. If even a portion of those who are now in poverty (Thus sometimes non-working) and these white coller workers were transformed to farming occupations, there would be enough food and goods for everyone.

To prevent greed = theres only so much you can put into your pockets at one time, and other people will see you and get pissed off at you, and you will be shunned.

A Perfect example of this (Ironically) is at fast food restraunts - even though you could save dozens of dollers by stealing those ketchup and mustard bags and straws and napkins, you don't do you? Cause you don't wanna look like a total idiot. [/b]
oh theres plenty of food for everyone, most starving peopel are in civil wars and/or diease ridden places. food was not what i was talking about. I was refering goods like computers, as well as other very finite goods.

theraven

13th September 2006, 18:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:38 PM
To all you commies out there when ever you guys sieze power put me on the waiting list for one of those 80 inch plasma t.v. thanks. :P
yep exactly.

this is m real problem with communism is that its just not going to work

Forward Union

13th September 2006, 18:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:48 PM
this is m real problem with communism is that its just not going to work
And yet you can't pin down why.

Forward Union

13th September 2006, 18:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:24 AM
Yeah! Let's increase the power of government so that we can dismantle it.

:lol:

Give me a freaking break.
Me and s3rna and many other users here don't want to strenghten the state, atall. We want to abolish it from the off.

Why do you have so much trouble differenciating between Libertarian and Authorotarian communist strands of thought?

theraven

13th September 2006, 20:20

Originally posted by Love Underground+Sep 13 2006, 03:52 PM--> (Love Underground @ Sep 13 2006, 03:52 PM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 03:48 PM
this is m real problem with communism is that its just not going to work
And yet you can't pin down why. [/b]
theres not enough stuff for everyone

encephalon

13th September 2006, 20:22

There only so many 80 inch plasma on the market it takes a long time for companys to go from limited production to mass production so who get first crack at it. If you only can make 20,000 and 10 millon poeple want them.

If 10,000,000 want 80 inch plasma televisions that will benefit them fuck-all, 10,000,000 people can get up off their asses and make 10,000,000 of them.

In addition.. companies have nothing to do with communism.

Forward Union

13th September 2006, 20:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 05:21 PM

theres not enough stuff for everyone
Survival wise, yes there is.

encephalon

13th September 2006, 20:48

theres not enough stuff for everyone

It depends on what you need by stuff; no, not everyone can own a jet (at least it isn't forseeable under current social conditions). But a hundred people can use a large jet virtually whenever they want--yes, believe it or not, even today people have to lower themselves to such collectivity. I know it surprises you.

The thing is, there's the potential for whatever people want. If people decide they want individual jets for each person on the planet, and they understand the basic fact that this means a lot of other crap they want might not get made because of it, then they can make a jet for every person on the planet. Of course, this is an inane example.. if everyone somehow did decide to make enough jets for everyone, we'd run out of fossil fuels in a day or two.

What you cappies don't seem to understand is that under communism, the same basic economic principles exist. The material world, in this sense at least, does not change. Whereas a few key rulers decide what is produced today using dollars as votes, the great majority of people are disenfranchised form this decision. All communists really call for (in the context of this argument) is the same equalization of economic opportunity as society demanded equality of political opportunity (which isn't even viable without economic equality).

In any case, if this were a premise for judging any social system, capitalism would receive a big red F.

theraven

13th September 2006, 20:49

Originally posted by Love Underground+Sep 13 2006, 05:42 PM--> (Love Underground @ Sep 13 2006, 05:42 PM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 05:21 PM

theres not enough stuff for everyone
Survival wise, yes there is. [/b]
yes, but we aren't talking basic surivival (or so you guys say)

If 10,000,000 want 80 inch plasma televisions that will benefit them fuck-all, 10,000,000 people can get up off their asses and make 10,000,000 of them.

In addition.. companies have nothing to do with communism.

what about a divsion of labor? we can't have everyoen doing everytihng for thesmelves, that leads to substiance living

encephalon

13th September 2006, 20:59

Brillant anwser shows your complete lack of knowledge about manufactureing high tech eletronics.

It's exactly what happens today, is it not? If a great many people demand plasma televisions, a great many people are needed to produce them. I do know a bit about "manufactureing" electronics, and it's a complicated process--luckily, machines do most the work. The process of mere electroplating takes a tremendous amount of effort and resources, and that is nothing compared to the degree of work in manufacturing electronics. Yet there is absolutely no reason why people cannot organize together to make them; at least, there's no less a reason for them being unable to make them in the future as there is today.

The difference between capitalism and what communists advocate is: who's doing the demanding? The great majority of people do not have a say in it today; even if they want a plasma television, they do not have enough dollar-votes to have them produced. It's comparable to owning a single stock in microsoft: you've no say in what happens, and you don't benefit from your single dollar-vote.

Indeed, why not set up your US government in this fashion? Make it so that the votes of the top 1% of the most prestigious people count a million times more than the single votes of the average citizen (avoiding the argument for now that this is how the US state works). Let me know how that works out for you.

encephalon

13th September 2006, 21:06

what about a divsion of labor? we can't have everyoen doing everytihng for thesmelves, that leads to substiance living

You're claiming that a group of people cannot divide their tasks among themselves where they fit most appropriately? That they need managers to tell them what labor they can and can't do? Do you have the skills be an international soccer player? If not, then I assume that you aren't going to join a team. No one had to force that upon you: it is in your best interest, as well as everyone elses, to do what you do best in any given project. If you want a plasma tv and you don't know shit about engineering, you aren't going to act as an engineer because that means there's less of a chance you'll actually get a quality plasma tv. It is in you best interest to stick to whatever expertise you've developed.

I'd be a much better computer programmer than a biologist--which means that in a group setting, I'm not going to try to be both a programmer and biologist. I'll let people do what they are most suited to do, and I'll do what I'm most suited to do.

encephalon

13th September 2006, 22:04

You want 10 millon poeple who have never made a tv before to make there own tv. Are you gonna replace 10 millon home that get burned to the ground because they screwed the wiring up.

Please, have you ever worked in a factory? Do you think that workers in electronics factories inherently know how to do it? Do you think they've done it their entire lives? No, of course not. There are standards and procedures that any twelve year old can learn (and in some countries, they do learn) for every commodity in the world.

That's the one great thing that capitalism has accomplished: extremely complex things can be made in a very simple procedure by anyone with the mentality of an eight year old. Your televisions and computers and radios and jets and everything else are not made by "accomplished geniuses," nor are they made by people who have much knowledge at all of the whole commodity that they are constructing.

I manufactured cars for a couple years; and yet, I know very little at all about cars. I can change tires, brakes, oil, etc.. but I couldn't tell you how it all works together in detail, and nor can the majority of automotive workers. What I do know is what I learned the very first day: a simple set of procedure that I need to follow in order to add to the value of a car and work towards its completion. I did not need to know how to build a car; I did not need previous experience at all with the automotive industry, nor did any other worker in the building. I had to know how to operate the machinery, I had to know what went where, and I had to know what a defective part looked like.

The same is true with nigh everything produced today. Engineers aren't building your plasma televisions--they're mostly twelve to fifteen year olds in China, likely. I know, I know, it's disappointing that people you consider so dumb could make something so complex without even needing to know how it all works together, but that's capitalism. It's what defines us as workers.

Any group of children can learn how to play football as long as they have a rulebook and understand the necessary division of labor, and any group of workers can build virtually any commodity in existence today. That's why we, as workers, are so expendible and flexible regarding different fields of work: it's entirely easy , and the process is standardized across every field of manufacture.

encephalon

13th September 2006, 22:07

Also you never anwsered my orignal question if you only 20,000 of something a year and you havw 10 millon poeple who want them who gets first crack at them?

I'd say the people who build them. Once again, if ten million people want a particular useless product, then ten million people can get up off of their asses and work towards realizing that want instead of sitting there saying "I want this and that" without making any effort to facilitate production of that commodity.

colonelguppy

13th September 2006, 23:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:04 AM

how exactly?

The same way a few fat rich men decide what gets produced today: whatever is in our own interest, that's what we produce.
how do the masses possess the education or general to know how to manage an entire economy? sure everyone knows what good for themselves, but how are they going to know about the most effecient manner in which to produce goods which they possess no knowledge about?

encephalon

13th September 2006, 23:46

how do the masses possess the education or general to know how to manage an entire economy? sure everyone knows what good for themselves, but how are they going to know about the most effecient manner in which to produce goods which they possess no knowledge about?

Oh, that's right. Rich people are smarter than everyone else.

The rich don't make those decision. Bill gates doesn't know exactly how Halo works on an Xbox, and he didn't design the Xbox. The CEO of Sony knows nothing about the technical details of blueray, though for PR purposes he may know something about it.

They pay workers to make those decisions. The economy isn't micromanaged by the bourgeoisie; as long as they make a profit, they care fuck-all what gets done or how it happens. The bourgeoisie works in its own interests today as much as workers would work in their own interests.

Avtomatov

14th September 2006, 01:19

I was refering goods like computers, as well as other very finite goods.

To all you commies out there when ever you guys sieze power put me on the waiting list for one of those 80 inch plasma t.v. thanks.

You two are stupid. Did you know instead of making 80 inch plasma tv's and super fast computers, we could simply have smaller tvs and slower computers. There is no problem with that. Listen fancy graphics are amazing for a short while, then you get used to them, and they are just as pleasurable as what it was before you had them, but youve developed a tolerance so when you go back to your small tv and your slow computer it doesnt feal as good. So huge tv's will not exist in communism, the only reason we have them now is cuz it gives one company the edge in business. It doesnt actually benefit the people.

There only so many 80 inch plasma on the market it takes a long time for companys to go from limited production to mass production so who get first crack at it. If you only can make 20,000 and 10 millon poeple want them.
All tv's would be equal and there would be enough for everyone who wanted to buy one. We would make enough for everyone, if everyone wanted to buy one. Its called supply and demand.

Also you never anwsered my orignal question if you only 20,000 of something a year and you havw 10 millon poeple who want them who gets first crack at them? Whoever buys them first of course. Now i doubt we would make even 1 80 inch plasma tv in communism, it is completely useless as i explained in the first paragraph of my post.

Janus

14th September 2006, 01:28

Another one?

Communism is dependent on technological progress and strong technological tendencies developed by capitalism.

Janus

14th September 2006, 01:44

Small t.v. and slow computers are not same as big tv and fast computers dumb ass
Stop flaming.

The size of the TV would depend on a person's personal needs. And as for slow or fast PC's, I doubt there would be continued production of obsolete computers so they should all be relatively the same quality though they will also need to cater to people's needs. Obviously, a somputer programmer is gonna need a better computer than someone who simply uses a PC for typing purposes.

colonelguppy

14th September 2006, 01:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 05:20 PM

There only so many 80 inch plasma on the market it takes a long time for companys to go from limited production to mass production so who get first crack at it. If you only can make 20,000 and 10 millon poeple want them.
All tv's would be equal and there would be enough for everyone who wanted to buy one. We would make enough for everyone, if everyone wanted to buy one. Its called supply and demand.
no supply and demand is a system which controls pricess which intern controls distribution, what your just talking about is an insane system of entitlement that wouldn't work.

Janus

14th September 2006, 02:02

Hey janus he started it he called me stupid in his original post make sure you tell him no flaming as well.
You could ignore it. Flames aren't gonna convince others and neither is flaming back.

Sevilliano

14th September 2006, 02:21

Originally posted by encephalon+--> (encephalon)Those few fat rich men have a single interest: personal profit. This is what drives whatever it is they decide should be produced. They weigh the good with the bad, and go with the best bet.

The same is true with a thousand: if they all control the means of production and no single person profits at the expense of another, then it isn't an issue of profit--it's an issue of needs and wants of society as a whole.[/b]
So in a communist society everyone would be entirely altruistic, but there still would be disagreements on the best way to help others and run the economy. How does the community decide to implement the plan of one group of people over another group's plan?

Originally posted by [email protected]
Now, while there are idiot capitalists here who claim there's no such thing as need and it's all a matter of want, those of us in the real world know we need food. We know that we need shelter. We know that people in wheelchairs generally need accomodation, and so on.
I wouldn't say that needs don't exist, but they are so basic that bringing them up become almost a moot point. A human can survive entirely on a diet of milk and potatoes, needs only a burlap sack to wear and a house made of dried cow manure. All needs for the average person are fufilled. Is this all that someone is entitled to?

encephalon
I'll even say that a need would be the proper access for taking part in the system
That wouldn't be consistent with how you've seemed to define a "need" in your previous quote. From what I can tell, you think a need is goods that allow people to live despite the coercive effects of nature. What if someone makes the choice not to be a part of the decision making process? Are they going to suffer the same fate as someone who chooses not to eat or sleep outside in the winter? Or did I misinterpret something?

Avtomatov

14th September 2006, 02:22

Small t.v. and slow computers are not same as big tv and fast computers dumb ass

Good god Avtomatov next thing be telling me is black & white t.v. are as good as color t.v. .

Do you think when black and white tv's were the cutting edge, people enjoyed them less then they enjoy big screen tv's which are the cutting edge now? No, its the cutting edge which people enjoy more. Have you ever watched a black and white movie? Probably not, because you have this tolerance to entertainment like a drug addect has for drugs. Back when they were the standard, they were just as enjoyable as whatever the standard is now. You do not understand the nature of pleasure.

encephalon

14th September 2006, 03:15

So in a communist society everyone would be entirely altruistic, but there still would be disagreements on the best way to help others and run the economy. How does the community decide to implement the plan of one group of people over another group's plan?

Democracy.

I wouldn't say that needs don't exist, but they are so basic that bringing them up become almost a moot point. A human can survive entirely on a diet of milk and potatoes, needs only a burlap sack to wear and a house made of dried cow manure. All needs for the average person are fufilled. Is this all that someone is entitled to?

Needs change with the material circumstances of life. A worker in rural America needs a car (although primarily because public transportation is nearly non-existent in most states) in order to drive to work. We sure can survive on milk and potatos, but for all intents and purposes we need much more to be healthy. You're listing the needs of a world that no longer exists in the first world, and hasn't for a very long time.

That wouldn't be consistent with how you've seemed to define a "need" in your previous quote. From what I can tell, you think a need is goods that allow people to live despite the coercive effects of nature. What if someone makes the choice not to be a part of the decision making process? Are they going to suffer the same fate as someone who chooses not to eat or sleep outside in the winter? Or did I misinterpret something?

No, needs are defined by material circumstances, which in turn define social conditions. What we need to operate effectively in human society is dictated by society itself. If someone chooses to not participate in the decision making process, then that's fine. But if they choose to take part in the totality of society, and have a say in what gets produced, then they need access to a voting system. Social needs are still needs.

MrDoom

14th September 2006, 18:43

He's talking about back when black&white, 10" tv's WERE the cutting edge, you dolt.

bcbm

14th September 2006, 18:50

Why can't we have super fast computers and giant TV's, if we control the means of production for those goods?

Seriously, if I can't play Counter-Strike: Source after the revolution, I'll be fucking pissed. ;)

MrDoom

14th September 2006, 18:53

Fast computers would be a key component for a communistic society, if TV, phone, and computer were to be consolidated.

If anything, fast computers should be given out to both individuals and for public use.

theraven

14th September 2006, 22:00

Democracy.

and when that fails?

encephalon

15th September 2006, 01:05

and when that fails?

We'll all be dead or enslaved.

Avtomatov

15th September 2006, 01:12

Im not a primitivist.

Hey Automatov are a fan of Pol Pot cuz you he seem to have a lot in comin.
Hy patun U aend gorg bush hav a lott in comin, U he seem both doent noe howw 2 spel.

Avtomatov

15th September 2006, 02:00

Im an Epicurean and a Communist.

unema-

15th September 2006, 03:04

Hey Automatov are a fan of Pol Pot cuz you he seem to have a lot in comin.AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ty guy.

ZX3

15th September 2006, 14:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 05:49 PM

What you cappies don't seem to understand is that under communism, the same basic economic principles exist. The material world, in this sense at least, does not change. Whereas a few key rulers decide what is produced today using dollars as votes, the great majority of people are disenfranchised form this decision. All communists really call for (in the context of this argument) is the same equalization of economic opportunity as society demanded equality of political opportunity (which isn't even viable without economic equality).

In any case, if this were a premise for judging any social system, capitalism would receive a big red F.

While it is true economic principles do not change, the methods by which are used to meet them are obviously different between communism/socialism and capitalism.

However, socialism/capitalism has basic errors in their analysis of capitalism, and thus incorporate those errors into their own thinking.

So, socialists/communists like to say that that a few rich fat guys determine what is produced for all The socialists/communists say that everyone (ie. the workers) will determine what is produced for all.

Yet the socialist/communist analysis of capitalism is wrong. Simply put, rich fat guys do not become rich and fat by producing things which nobody wants. They get rich and fat by producing things which people want. Whether those things are $10 million yachts, and thus available to only a few, or a candy bar for a $1, it doesn't matter. The principle remains. In a capitalist economy, the consumer determines what is produced.

That is not the case under socialism/communism where it is proudly claimed that the workers will make those productive decions. What are the results?

The results are that under socialism/communism the producers are deciding what they will, and will not make, how much to make, how to make it ect. Satisfying their interests, not the interests of the consumer, become paramount. That is why socialists/communists frequently try to distinguish between wants and needs, why there is such sneering at the thought of large tv's ect. Its why there was so often shortages of basic consumer goods in the USSR and other communist societies. Its why socialists/communists debate over the continued existence of certain goods and services in a socialsit/communist community. Running a modern economy is an extremely complicated endeavor these days, and it makes sense for the socialist/communist to limit what is produced, so as to make things easier for them (as the producers, and perhaps a little egalitarian on the side). It does not seem to benefit the community and consumers at large when their interests are subverted to the interests of the producers.

theraven

15th September 2006, 16:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:06 PM

and when that fails?

We'll all be dead or enslaved.
wow just what most of us cappies predict will happen during communism..

what an odd coincidnence

red team

16th September 2006, 06:45

Scew you people wanting your freaking bread we need more tanks.

Question: which country currently has the biggest military budget that is greater than all other countries in the world combined?

indeed: "Scew you people wanting your freaking bread we need more tanks"

Avtomatov

16th September 2006, 07:00

The reason there were shortages of basic consumer goods in the soviet union and other worker paradises is cuz the put military spending first they pissed like 30% of there GNP on the red army. Scew you people wanting your freaking bread we need more tanks.
It was an arms race. The Communists needed to be able to match the capitalists in military strength. If they didnt then the imperialists could have invaded and destroyed socialism.

grove street

16th September 2006, 17:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 06:34 PM
Ok here is the issue at the heart of it. COmmunsimm advocates quality. yet the issue here is how does it spread aroudn equally when theres not enough for all?
In the year 1980 there was enough food to feed a world population 12x it's size, yet that was the very same year as the Ethopian famine.

Avtomatov

20th September 2006, 02:30

Originally posted by patton+Sep 19 2006, 03:52 PM--> (patton @ Sep 19 2006, 03:52 PM)
[email protected] 16 2006, 04:01 AM

The reason there were shortages of basic consumer goods in the soviet union and other worker paradises is cuz the put military spending first they pissed like 30% of there GNP on the red army. Scew you people wanting your freaking bread we need more tanks.
It was an arms race. The Communists needed to be able to match the capitalists in military strength. If they didnt then the imperialists could have invaded and destroyed socialism.
Match the capitalist country military? The red army was twice the size U.S. military. [/b]
Yah but they werent as effective. Dont be so stupid.

ZX3

20th September 2006, 13:49

Originally posted by grove street+Sep 16 2006, 02:49 PM--> (grove street @ Sep 16 2006, 02:49 PM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 06:34 PM
Ok here is the issue at the heart of it. COmmunsimm advocates quality. yet the issue here is how does it spread aroudn equally when theres not enough for all?
In the year 1980 there was enough food to feed a world population 12x it's size, yet that was the very same year as the Ethopian famine. [/b]
Yep, and the president of Ethiopia was a man who claimed to bne a Marxist, tried running his economy in antithesis to capitalist principles ect ecte ect.

I know. I know. Socialism has never been tried, Mengistu was not a real socialist blah blah blah.

Socialism probably will only exist should it "work."