The Future of the Human Race

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well you all know what the communist camp want.

Which is essentially a classless society which is hi-tech an were all cool and happy.

But, what do you cappies want? Thats what i want to know

[Pirate Utopian]

they want constant profits at the expens of everything

[Huelguista]

Which is essentially a classless society which is hi-tech an were all cool and happy.

I don't know why but I love that quote, it's funny.

What do the cappies want? To be able to oppress and gain money at the same time.

sickens me.

[Tupac-Amaru]

We want to have our individual rights.

We want the right to ownership of land.
We want the right to free speech.
The right to vote.
The right open-up a business.
The right to make a better living for ourselves.

(Note: all the rights stated above are denied in a socialist system)

Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

The best government is the government that governs least!

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I want a new car.
Great, so if we promised you a new car under Communism, you'd join us? ;)


We want the right to ownership of land.
It should be noted that, since Socialists desire the ownership of all property by society as a whole, and since society is by definition comprised of individuals, then in a Socialist state every individual would have the right to own property.


We want the right to free speech.
Then surely you must be very unhappy at the Capitalist system that is currently in place, which denies free speech.


The right to vote.
When the balance of opinion has shifted so insanely in favor of the Socialists, through Socialist education programs and propaganda campaigns, that there isn't even any point in Capitalists bothering to vote, then I see no reason not to let you vote.


The right open-up a business.
Put it this way. You are free to open up a business, but you will die as a result. And don't claim this is evil or heartless or anything, because in reality if every individual in a Capitalist society opened up their own business right now the vast majority of them would fail and their owners would face poverty and starvation, as well as the consequences of not being able to repay the loans a lot of them would have had to take out in order to start up the business.


The right to make a better living for ourselves.
Every individual in a Socialist system has the right to make a better living for themselves. They do this by working hard and improving the productivity and prosperity of society as a whole. This society, being comprised of individuals as stated above, will then repay each and every individual.

[Free Left]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 15 2006, 04:28 PM--> (patton @ Sep 15 2006, 04:28 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 03:52 PM
Well you all know what the communist camp want.

Which is essentially a classless society which is hi-tech an were all cool and happy.

But, what do you cappies want? Thats what i want to know
I want a new car. :P [/b]
That has to be the most true capitalist response ever.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:41 PM
It should be noted that, since Socialists desire the ownership of all property by society as a whole, and since society is by definition comprised of individuals, then in a Socialist state every individual would have the right to own property.

You're just twisting words and definitions around to evade the real issue: it's true that socialists desire the ownership of all property by society as a whole, BUT they achieve this by using the government to take land. And in no way is it "society" that owns that land once its been taken, it's the Communist party that owns it (ok, now you're gona tell me that the CP is composed of the representatives of the people and that whatever they choose to do with the land is the will if the society, BUT we know that in practice this is total BS). The bottom line is: Every man should have the right to own a piece of land and governments shouldn't be trusted with the task of distributing the land or controling the land. Capitalism is based on individual rights, NOT collective rights, which is what you are talking about.



Then surely you must be very unhappy at the Capitalist system that is currently in place, which denies free speech.

Currently in place in which countries??? I live in the Netherlands and this is a very free country...people can say just about anything in public and have the right to do so. (That's why intollerant Islamo-fascists assassinated a dutch movie-maker a few years ago).

It is true that there have been some restrictions in free speech in the US, but it will never EVER be as bad as the censorship that existed in your soviet empire.


When the balance of opinion has shifted so insanely in favor of the Socialists, through Socialist education programs and propaganda campaigns, that there isn't even any point in Capitalists bothering to vote, then I see no reason not to let you vote.

So until then? I can't vote? Well in that case, you just proved my point: your system is undermocratic...it just brainwashes people...you seem to have addmitted it yourself.


Put it this way. You are free to open up a business, but you will die as a result. And don't claim this is evil or heartless or anything, because in reality if every individual in a Capitalist society opened up their own business right now the vast majority of them would fail and their owners would face poverty and starvation, as well as the consequences of not being able to repay the loans a lot of them would have had to take out in order to start up the business.

I think you are refering to something called Competition.
Under capitalism, competition is an economic process where men do not compete to put down others, but to raise their self up by creating values which are potentially unlimited, and raising their competitors up in the process. If business goes well, and you become very rich, it will motivate others to do the same. If business goes bad, it's not because the system has purposely made you fail, it's because you have not worked hard enough or not met the demand. In either case, it's better than not working at all which seems to be what you are suggesting.


Every individual in a Socialist system has the right to make a better living for themselves. They do this by working hard and improving the productivity and prosperity of society as a whole. This society, being comprised of individuals as stated above, will then repay each and every individual.

In theory maybe...but in practice?

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected] 15 2006, 05:50 PM
(Note: all the rights stated above are denied in a socialist system)
You fail.

[ZeroPain]

That has to be the most true capitalist response ever.

:lol: I would not mind a new car also so its not just capitalists.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by s3rna+Sep 15 2006, 06:53 PM--> (s3rna @ Sep 15 2006, 06:53 PM)
Tupac-[email protected] 15 2006, 05:50 PM
(Note: all the rights stated above are denied in a socialist system)
You fail. [/b]
Ah! Ok! Thank you for your insight.

Can you please give me examples to disprove my statement? And please don't give me theoretical rhetoric like redstar1916 did...give me concrete, historical examples...

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 15 2006, 07:04 PM--> (patton @ Sep 15 2006, 07:04 PM)
Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected] 15 2006, 06:51 PM

[email protected] 15 2006, 05:41 PM
It should be noted that, since Socialists desire the ownership of all property by society as a whole, and since society is by definition comprised of individuals, then in a Socialist state every individual would have the right to own property.

You're just twisting words and definitions around to evade the real issue: it's true that socialists desire the ownership of all property by society as a whole, BUT they achieve this by using the government to take land. And in no way is it "society" that owns that land once its been taken, it's the Communist party that owns it (ok, now you're gona tell me that the CP is composed of the representatives of the people and that whatever they choose to do with the land is the will if the society, BUT we know that in practice this is total BS). The bottom line is: Every man should have the right to own a piece of land and governments shouldn't be trusted with the task of distributing the land or controling the land. Capitalism is based on individual rights, NOT collective rights, which is what you are talking about.



Then surely you must be very unhappy at the Capitalist system that is currently in place, which denies free speech.

Currently in place in which countries??? I live in the Netherlands and this is a very free country...people can say just about anything in public and have the right to do so. (That's why intollerant Islamo-fascists assassinated a dutch movie-maker a few years ago).

It is true that there have been some restrictions in free speech in the US, but it will never EVER be as bad as the censorship that existed in your soviet empire.


When the balance of opinion has shifted so insanely in favor of the Socialists, through Socialist education programs and propaganda campaigns, that there isn't even any point in Capitalists bothering to vote, then I see no reason not to let you vote.

So until then? I can't vote? Well in that case, you just proved my point: your system is undermocratic...it just brainwashes people...you seem to have addmitted it yourself.


Put it this way. You are free to open up a business, but you will die as a result. And don't claim this is evil or heartless or anything, because in reality if every individual in a Capitalist society opened up their own business right now the vast majority of them would fail and their owners would face poverty and starvation, as well as the consequences of not being able to repay the loans a lot of them would have had to take out in order to start up the business.

I think you are refering to something called Competition.
Under capitalism, competition is an economic process where men do not compete to put down others, but to raise their self up by creating values which are potentially unlimited, and raising their competitors up in the process. If business goes well, and you become very rich, it will motivate others to do the same. If business goes bad, it's not because the system has purposely made you fail, it's because you have not worked hard enough or not met the demand. In either case, it's better than not working at all which seems to be what you are suggesting.


Every individual in a Socialist system has the right to make a better living for themselves. They do this by working hard and improving the productivity and prosperity of society as a whole. This society, being comprised of individuals as stated above, will then repay each and every individual.

In theory maybe...but in practice?
Edited for thruth. [/b]
Highlight your edit.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected] 15 2006, 05:50 PM
We want the right to ownership of land.

But you will get a house in communism, what more would you want?


The right to make a better living for ourselves.

We wouldn&#39;t want that now. <_<


We want the right to free speech.

Who will stop you? You&#39;ll be free to say as wish, but spewing out racist crap or anything like that will be met with opposition, as it is today.


The right to vote.

So do we, in a direct democracy.


The right open-up a business.

Why open up a business? You have everything you could need.

And no-one will stop you from working as what you wish, but if you try and force people to work under you while you do nothing except collect the profits, don&#39;t be surprised if they refuse to work or even meet that idea with violence.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 15 2006, 06:35 PM--> (patton @ Sep 15 2006, 06:35 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 03:52 PM
Well you all know what the communist camp want.

Which is essentially a classless society which is hi-tech an were all cool and happy.

But, what do you cappies want? Thats what i want to know
How about robbing the world of its natural resources buying a 70 room mansion, dieing fat and rich with billons in the bank. Oh i forgot to add opressing the working class cuz we cappies love to do that. [/b]
edited for truth :D

[red team]

Originally posted by Twopacs of shit
We want the right to ownership of land.

But you will get a house in communism, what more would you want?

Isn&#39;t it obvious. He wants a 100 room mansion, hand-crafted and rare art, a big shiny rare transparent stone and gas-guzzling, stylish, speedy engine in a brand named metal frame.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:18 PM
But you will get a house in communism, what more would you want?





Firstly, i dont want to "get" a house. I wan EARN a house...a house under my name...a house that I own. Secondly, i want a lot more. Cars, pool, designer clothing, luxury watches...to name a few.


Who will stop you?

The state will. As was the case in the former socialist countries and is still the case in the few current socialist countries.


So do we, in a direct democracy.

Well maybe you do, but i&#39;d prefer a system where i can vote for more than one party.


Why open up a business? You have everything you could need.

Well i may have everything i need, but i won&#39;t have everything i WANT. In order to get that i need to make money, i order to make money i need to open a business.


but if you try and force people to work under you while you do nothing except collect the profits

I would never do that&#33; I would only employ people who are willing to work for me.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

You&#39;re just twisting words and definitions around to evade the real issue: it&#39;s true that socialists desire the ownership of all property by society as a whole, BUT they achieve this by using the government to take land.
You leave out the part where they give land back to society.



And in no way is it "society" that owns that land once its been taken, it&#39;s the Communist party that owns it (ok, now you&#39;re gona tell me that the CP is composed of the representatives of the people and that whatever they choose to do with the land is the will if the society, BUT we know that in practice this is total BS).
Oh, ok. Sorry, I forgot that we all knew that Communism in practise is inherently bullshit. Hey guys, turns out we were wrong after all&#33; And, even more embarrassingly, we&#39;ve known it all along&#33;&#33; Please.

Yes, the CP takes the land off the capitalists, shock horror. And yes, the CP would composed of the representatives of the people, because that&#39;s how Communism works. The Soviet Union wasn&#39;t, because the Soviet Union wasn&#39;t Communist. North Korea isn&#39;t because North Korea isn&#39;t Communist.


The bottom line is: Every man should have the right to own a piece of land and governments shouldn&#39;t be trusted with the task of distributing the land or controling the land. Capitalism is based on individual rights, NOT collective rights, which is what you are talking about.
I know what Capitalism is based on. And I don&#39;t like it.


Currently in place in which countries??? I live in the Netherlands and this is a very free country...people can say just about anything in public and have the right to do so. (That&#39;s why intollerant Islamo-fascists assassinated a dutch movie-maker a few years ago).
The Netherlands isn&#39;t the only capitalist nation in the world.



It is true that there have been some restrictions in free speech in the US, but it will never EVER be as bad as the censorship that existed in your soviet empire.
You really just don&#39;t listen do you? SOVIET EMPIRE &#33;= COMMUNISM


So until then? I can&#39;t vote? Well in that case, you just proved my point: your system is undermocratic...it just brainwashes people...you seem to have addmitted it yourself.
Nope&#33; My point was actually that what you consider to be "democracy" has been rendered completely useless through capitalism&#39;s consistent brainwashing of the people. I am saying that democracy will be truly implemented when the people are free from your lies and biased educational programs.


I think you are refering to something called Competition.
Under capitalism, competition is an economic process where men do not compete to put down others, but to raise their self up by creating values which are potentially unlimited, and raising their competitors up in the process. If business goes well, and you become very rich, it will motivate others to do the same. If business goes bad, it&#39;s not because the system has purposely made you fail, it&#39;s because you have not worked hard enough or not met the demand. In either case, it&#39;s better than not working at all which seems to be what you are suggesting.
Right. So say, for example, tomorrow every single person in the Netherlands decided to drop what they were doing and set up their own computer company. Would the quality of computers increase exponentially each day?


In theory maybe...but in practice?
Pointless comment

[Pirate Utopian]

noooo i live in a capitalist nation, i live in holland too, nooooo&#33;

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;Amaru+Sep 15 2006, 08:30 PM--> (Tupac-Amaru @ Sep 15 2006, 08:30 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 07:18 PM
But you will get a house in communism, what more would you want?

Firstly, i dont want to "get" a house. I wan EARN a house...a house under my name...a house that I own. Secondly, i want a lot more. Cars, pool, designer clothing, luxury watches...to name a few. [/b]
You will earn a house, you will earn it with the hours of labour you will put back into society. As society moves forward maybe even you could have that pool you want and that designer clothing, luxury watches and cars. ;)


The state will.

What state?


Well maybe you do, but I’d prefer a system where I can vote for more than one party.

Direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy)


Well I may have everything I need, but I won&#39;t have everything I WANT. In order to get that I need to make money, I order to make money I need to open a business

Okay, everything you want, honestly, what would be stopping you from having the things you could have today? You wouldn&#39;t even need money.



I would never do that&#33; I would only employ people who are willing to work for me.

But that’s what every business does&#33; Do you think people want to work gruelling hours for a meagre wage? Of course not&#33; No human being in their right mind would&#33;
We are forced to work for pay, to buy all of our basic need.

[Tungsten]

Skinz

But you will get a house in communism, what more would you want?
I already have one, thanks. And like most workers, I don&#39;t appreciate people being given what people like myself have had to work for. This will cause alienation and create new classes.

Why open up a business? You have everything you could need.
We do? How? What&#39;s the big plan that&#39;s going to grant us all everything we need?

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:49 PM
Skinz

But you will get a house in communism, what more would you want?
I already have one, thanks. And like most workers, I don&#39;t appreciate people being given what people like myself have had to work for. This will cause alienation and create new classes.

So giving everyone a house will cause alienation and create new classes? :rolleyes:


We do? How? What&#39;s the big plan that&#39;s going to grant us all everything we need?

For the basic needs:

Food - There is already enough food to feed 12 billion people.
Shelter - There is by far enough space to house everyone
Energy - Nuclear power.

[colonelguppy]

hi tech stuff which is alot more hi tech than your stuff

oh yeah and a whole gauntlet of freedom would be nice to.

[Tupac-Amaru]

From their answers, i can see that both Skinz and redstar1916 are arguing from a utopian standpoint. Both have stressed that Communism is the best because there is no state, there is freedom, etc, etc. Of course a Communist Utopia is the better way of life. The problem is that it&#39;s unreachable. In all my arguments on this forum i wasn&#39;t arguing against Communism, i was arguing against Socialism. That&#39;s why i used the Soviet empire as an example several times. I would go for Communism any day&#33; But since a heaven-on-earth is impossible, i choose to opt for Capitalism, which is the closest thing to it.

If fact it would be total ludicrus to agrue against a utopia...

In short the point is this: you don&#39;t even NEED to defend Communism, because it&#39;s great&#33; No doubt about it. I just can&#39;t undersand why you are in favour of Socialism which is a despicable system that enslaves men and creates an oppresive elite (as opposed to capitalism where you are given all your human rights).

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;[email protected] 15 2006, 09:08 PM
From their answers, i can see that both Skinz and redstar1916 are arguing from a utopian standpoint. Both have stressed that Communism is the best because there is no state, there is freedom, etc, etc. Of course a Communist Utopia is the better way of life. The problem is that it&#39;s unreachable.
But why is it unreachable? What possible obstacle&#092;s cant we make our way around?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

From their answers, i can see that both Skinz and redstar1916 are arguing from a utopian standpoint.
We are arguing from, as you say yourself, a Communist standpoint.


The problem is that it&#39;s unreachable.
Actually it is very much reachable, namely through the establishment of a Socialist government.


In all my arguments on this forum i wasn&#39;t arguing against Communism, i was arguing against Socialism.
Socialism is necessary for Communism to develop. It eliminates class antagonism and lays the ground work for a socio-economic system in which contribution to society is the most desirable path of survival, so that when the state finally dissolves there isn&#39;t just all-out anarchy and genocide.


But since a heaven-on-earth is impossible, i choose to opt for Capitalism, which is the closest thing to it.
Capitalism is by no means closer to heaven on Earth than Socialism.


In short the point is this: you don&#39;t even NEED to defend Communism, because it&#39;s great&#33;
Great, so we don&#39;t have to go through all that shit about motivation and people naturally screwing each other over&#33;


I just can&#39;t undersand why you are in favour of Socialism which is a despicable system that enslaves men and creates an oppresive elite
Under Socialism men (and women) work under the incentive of furthering themselves, which due to the economic and political system in place would be tantamount to the furthering of society. There is no "oppressive elite" as you have pit it; yes, there are those who govern in a Socialist state but they are merely contributing to society in the same way as the carpenter or the factory worker do.

[Tungsten]

RedStar1916

Socialism is necessary for Communism to develop. It eliminates class antagonism and lays the ground work for a socio-economic system in which contribution to society is the most desirable path of survival, so that when the state finally dissolves there isn&#39;t just all-out anarchy and genocide.
And that&#39;s why you&#39;re called a utopian. You think socialism will eliminate class antagonism by creating equality. It won&#39;t. It will result in new ones, triggered by the enforcement of this equality.

Under Socialism men (and women) work under the incentive of furthering themselves, which due to the economic and political system in place would be tantamount to the furthering of society.
That&#39;s already happening now; I make stuff, it benefits society and I get rich in the process. Why do we need communism?

[Publius]

Well you all know what the communist camp want.

Which is essentially a classless society which is hi-tech an were all cool and happy.

But, what do you cappies want? Thats what i want to know

Roughly the same thing.

Communism is idealism.

"a classless society where everyone has everything they need and bunches of free time and robots do all our work for us."

Asinine political philosophy; laudable ultimate goal.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

And that&#39;s why you&#39;re called a utopian. You think socialism will eliminate class antagonism by creating equality. It won&#39;t. It will result in new ones, triggered by the enforcement of this equality.
But this equality will be imposed by a democratically elected government, which will prevent the administration from alienating the rest of society. Effectively, the government will be the people.

Oh, and this just in, democracy &#33;= utopianism.


That&#39;s already happening now; I make stuff, it benefits society and I get rich in the process. Why do we need communism?
From your narcissistic point of view? It prevents you from being sent to the great utopia in the sky by someone who works twice as hard as you for one tenth your salary.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;Amaru+Sep 15 2006, 07:58 PM--> (Tupac-Amaru @ Sep 15 2006, 07:58 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:53 PM

Tupac&#045;[email protected] 15 2006, 05:50 PM
(Note: all the rights stated above are denied in a socialist system)
You fail.
Ah&#33; Ok&#33; Thank you for your insight.

Can you please give me examples to disprove my statement? And please don&#39;t give me theoretical rhetoric like redstar1916 did...give me concrete, historical examples... [/b]
Nope, I&#39;m not gonna do that, the burden of proof is on you, as I&#39;m quite sure you know. You&#39;re not wasting any of my time.
You fail.

[TTe5]

Actually it is very much reachable, namely through the establishment of a Socialist government.

History has actually proven you wrong. Every time a government is established it keeps amassing more power - it doesn&#39;t give up its power. The US government is a good example, as is the Soviet government.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

History has actually proven you wrong.
Considering nothing I am talking about has ever happened before, nor would I expect it to have done so, I&#39;d say history has proven nothing.


Every time a government is established it keeps amassing more power - it doesn&#39;t give up its power.
The difference being that in the past, governments have been set up to rule a nation by their political and economic systems forever (monarchism, then capitalism), with no notion of said system ever being replaced. A Socialist state, by definition is temporary, and the leaders of such a state would obviously be aware of this. And so the state would be run so as to do its job and then fade away. After socialist policies begin to take effect and the corruption and hatred sewn into society by capitalism begins to disappear, people&#39;s demands for increased freedom and less state control would be peacefully met, as those in power are aware that this is all part of the transition into Communism.

On the other hand, if the Socialist state manages to get everything right and prepare the people for Communism but then refuse to give up power peacefully, well then they will meet their end just like all the other administrations that passed their prime.


The US government is a good example, as is the Soviet government.
Actually no they&#39;re not, because the US government wasn&#39;t established as a temporary transitional government, and the Soviet Union was set up in circumstances wherein the political and economical system the Bolsheviks attempted to bring in was incompatible with the social and industrial climate of the time, which led to major instability within the Union, which was then utilized by Stalin, among others, to establish a totalitarian dictatorship.

A true Socialist government would be temporary and transitional, and would be brought in in a time and place where its socio-economic policies would be compatible with the social and economic climate.

[red team]

as those in power are aware that this is all part of the transition into Communism.

On the other hand, if the Socialist state manages to get everything right and prepare the people for Communism but then refuse to give up power peacefully, well then they will meet their end just like all the other administrations that passed their prime.

You forget one thing. Inertia. If a monetary economy is established and in likelihood the majority political forces of the left still accepts a monetary economy, what will inevitably happen is the concentration of value in few hands this time being the government with a controlling interest in the assets of society. The people with accumulated assets are not willing to give them up because of the economic uncertainty inherent in such a move. Further, money will be accumulated in official social institutions like companies (or the collective) whatever you want to call the new production unit so there&#39;s nothing to prevent these new units to evolve again into corporations with a controlling interest at the top.

The economic logic of self-interest inherent in a monetary system in which accumulated value means accumulated power will inevitably lead to degeneration to Capitalism whether you desire it or not. People who want to go further and do away with a debt trading system will inevitably run up against established powerful interests, so now who do you trust as being honest in bringing about revolutionary change and who are simply self-interested careerists? You&#39;ll now have a moneyed elite with greater power than what any of the moneyed elite under the present system now can only dream of because they now have direct control of the repressive apparatus of the state.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

You forget one thing. Inertia. If a monetary economy is established and in likelihood the majority political forces of the left still accepts a monetary economy, what will inevitably happen is the concentration of value in few hands this time being the government with a controlling interest in the assets of society. The people with accumulated assets are not willing to give them up because of the economic uncertainty inherent in such a move. Further, money will be accumulated in official social institutions like companies (or the collective) whatever you want to call the new production unit so there&#39;s nothing to prevent these new units to evolve again into corporations with a controlling interest at the top.

The economic logic of self-interest inherent in a monetary system in which accumulated value means accumulated power will inevitably lead to degeneration to Capitalism whether you desire it or not. People who want to go further and do away with a debt trading system will inevitably run up against established powerful interests, so now who do you trust as being honest in bringing about revolutionary change and who are simply self-interested careerists? You&#39;ll now have a moneyed elite with greater power than what any of the moneyed elite under the present system now can only dream of because they now have direct control of the repressive apparatus of the state.
This is all on the assumption that there will be money in this Socialist state, and that people will be allowed have more money than others.

In other words, this is all on the assumption that the Socialist state in question will actually be a Capitalist state.

In reality, there will most likely not be a monetary system under socialism, there will either be a rationing system or a bartering system, either of which would tend to the specific needs of society and ensure there are none left with surplus goods, and even if there are a few left with surplus goods, they would have no trading value because everyone would have everything they need provided to them by the state, and therefore the demand for the surplus goods in question would be non-existant.

[Gnosis]

You want individual rights?

You are an individual whether you have the right to be or not, whether you are recognized or not.

The right to free expression is irrelevent.
What is relevent is your individual ability to express yourself freely, and that is possible whether you &#39;have the right&#39; or not. What free speach depends on is whether or not you have anything to say. Who you are, what you think, what you are, if you are, this is what speaking freely depends on, not some concept &#39;free speach&#39;.
The &#39;right&#39; is a mere concept, an ability is far more potent a tool.

The right to &#39;own property&#39; is irrelevent.
Your ability to interact with material resources is far more important than your &#39;right&#39; to. Your access to and ability to manipulate those materials is far more important than your &#39;ownership&#39; of them.

Rights to vote and open a business are not so important as being recognized for who and what you are, and accessing the ability and the resources to sustain your life and express your passions.

Everyone has equal possibility of accessing every resource, but the probability of access is different depending on the the condition of the individual and the condition of the resource.

[MrDoom]

I wonder if the cappies here plan to halt human progress before flow of capital reaches the &#39;boiling point&#39; and scarcity and need for private property can be eliminated.

[TTe5]

Considering nothing I am talking about has ever happened before, nor would I expect it to have done so, I&#39;d say history has proven nothing.

The USSR, PRC, etc.

It&#39;s ironic that you wish to rid society of the State by forming a new one.


The difference being that in the past, governments have been set up to rule a nation by their political and economic systems forever (monarchism, then capitalism), with no notion of said system ever being replaced. A Socialist state, by definition is temporary, and the leaders of such a state would obviously be aware of this. And so the state would be run so as to do its job and then fade away. After socialist policies begin to take effect and the corruption and hatred sewn into society by capitalism begins to disappear, people&#39;s demands for increased freedom and less state control would be peacefully met, as those in power are aware that this is all part of the transition into Communism.

Why not just rid everyone of the State once and for all? Once you give the State power it will never give it up. No matter how altruistic its aims are.


Actually no they&#39;re not, because the US government wasn&#39;t established as a temporary transitional government, and the Soviet Union was set up in circumstances wherein the political and economical system the Bolsheviks attempted to bring in was incompatible with the social and industrial climate of the time, which led to major instability within the Union, which was then utilized by Stalin, among others, to establish a totalitarian dictatorship.

Yes, they are. The US government was set-up to be very small and to have limited powers - which is not the case today. The Soviet government was set-up to fade away to be replaced by a communist society - it never did. You can blame it on social and economic factors, but the fact is that once a government has power it is not going to give it up.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The USSR, PRC, etc.
Like I said, the kind of Socialist state I have described did not happen in these countries, nor would I have expected it to given the social and economic climate into which these states were born. So, as I said, history has proven nothing.


Why not just rid everyone of the State once and for all? Once you give the State power it will never give it up. No matter how altruistic its aims are.
If we get rid of the state right now, first of all the corporations, having no state to keep them in check, will move to claim complete control over society, by force if necessary. Also, because there will be no institution to regulate class antagonism and impose law and order, there will most likely be a massive backlash against the ruling class by the lower classes. The ruling classes will then employ the help of the corporations in subduing this rebellion. There will be civil war, chaos and genocide.


Yes, they are. The US government was set-up to be very small and to have limited powers - which is not the case today. The Soviet government was set-up to fade away to be replaced by a communist society - it never did. You can blame it on social and economic factors, but the fact is that once a government has power it is not going to give it up.
But the US government set up to exist permanently, it was not a temporary institution, and it did not set conditions for itself under which it would cease to exist.

As for the USSR, I have already explained he case with them, but you more or less chose to ignore it.

[Tungsten]

RedStar1916

But this equality will be imposed by a democratically elected government,
Oh so you think enforcing economic equality is okay providing it&#39;s democratic. The Nazi party was democratically elected, do you endorse their actions too?

Effectively, the government will be the people.
Just like it is in the US, right?

From your narcissistic point of view? It prevents you from being sent to the great utopia in the sky by someone who works twice as hard as you for one tenth your salary.
For someone with an alleged distain of narcissism, the hubris sure comes thick and fast. Obviously the fact that people who work smart are usually better off than those who work hard bothers you, or is it because you&#39;re not being granted a licence to kill such people?

A true Socialist government would be temporary and transitional, and would be brought in in a time and place where its socio-economic policies would be compatible with the social and economic climate.
And under true capitalism there would be no government and no taxes. Neither "true capitalism" nor "true socialism" is going to happen, though.

This is all on the assumption that there will be money in this Socialist state, and that people will be allowed have more money than others.
And how is this going to be enforced without a massive, bureaucratic, interfering state that spies on your every economic transaction? The only way to enforce this would be to force everyone to do exactly the same thing.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Oh so you think enforcing economic equality is okay providing it&#39;s democratic. The Nazi party was democratically elected, do you endorse their actions too?
That&#39;s ridiculous. I never said a Socialist government would invade nations without provocation and send Communists, homosexuals, Jews and other minorities to concentration camps to be gassed now, did I?


Just like it is in the US, right?
Yes, only democracy would be much more direct and the media and education system would be less biased in favor of capitalism, obviously.


For someone with an alleged distain of narcissism, the hubris sure comes thick and fast. Obviously the fact that people who work smart are usually better off than those who work hard bothers you, or is it because you&#39;re not being granted a licence to kill such people?
:blink: What? When did I express a desire to kill people for "working smart"?



And under true capitalism there would be no government and no taxes. Neither "true capitalism" nor "true socialism" is going to happen, though.
So your arguement is that a true Socialist government can never be established because... a true Socialist government can never be established.


And how is this going to be enforced without a massive, bureaucratic, interfering state that spies on your every economic transaction? The only way to enforce this would be to force everyone to do exactly the same thing.
Read the post you quoted.

[Rhyknow]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;Amaru+Sep 15 2006, 07:30 PM--> (Tupac-Amaru @ Sep 15 2006, 07:30 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 07:18 PM
But you will get a house in communism, what more would you want?





Firstly, i dont want to "get" a house. I wan EARN a house...a house under my name...a house that I own. Secondly, i want a lot more. Cars, pool, designer clothing, luxury watches...to name a few.


Who will stop you?

The state will. As was the case in the former socialist countries and is still the case in the few current socialist countries.


So do we, in a direct democracy.

Well maybe you do, but i&#39;d prefer a system where i can vote for more than one party.


Why open up a business? You have everything you could need.

Well i may have everything i need, but i won&#39;t have everything i WANT. In order to get that i need to make money, i order to make money i need to open a business.


but if you try and force people to work under you while you do nothing except collect the profits

I would never do that&#33; I would only employ people who are willing to work for me. [/b]
But why? They&#39;re just material goods that mean absolutely jack shit in life... Everyone makes out communism and socialism to be a big, mean governemnt but it isn&#39;t... it allows free speech and everyone is equal... Capitalism offers none of that, money comes in the way of human welfare

[Pirate Utopian]

with capitalism if someone is very rich somebody else is dirtpoor, in communism if some is very rich everyone is very rich&#33;

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 05:59 PM

They&#39;re just material goods that mean absolutely jack shit in life...


Well until now noone has told us what the meaning of life is. So until then, so as not to get bored, i choose to pursue material possetions. What else can we do with our meaningless lives appart from enjoy it to the fullest with nice cars, pools, big houses, etc.



Everyone makes out socialism to be a big, mean governemnt but it isn&#39;t... it allows free speech and everyone is equal...

Well Socialism is all about big mean governments...look at all the Scialists govs today and in the past. Was there freedom? Not by a long shot&#33; Was there equality? Nope...there was an elite (the CP) which claimed to be distributing wealth but in fact just kept it all&#33; Have you ever visited the Kremlin? Have you visited Ho Chi Minh&#39;s palace? INCREDIBLY pimpin&#39; houses let me tell ya&#33; If you&#39;re a CP member, you&#39;ll be sure to see ur house on MTV cribs&#33;

[Qwerty Dvorak]

But why? They&#39;re just material goods that mean absolutely jack shit in life...
Um, I&#39;m not exactly sure how true that is, I mean as a Communist I am also a materialist so I believe that, physically speaking, there isn&#39;t a whole lot more to life than material things (apart of course from health and mental and emotional wellbeing, but these things and material goods are not mutually exclusive).

My point is that material goods actually mean quite a lot in life, in that they include our means of survival, and our means of functioning in society. However, this is irrelevant, as material goods will exist under Socialism or Communism just as they do under Capitalism, and just as they did under Monarchism. The difference is that under Communism the material goods will be spread fairly amongst society, eliminating many problem cause by unfair distribution of said goods under capitalism such as poverty, jealousy, greed, corruption etc., problem which have come to be blamed on the very existence of material goods, albeit mainly by primitivists, spiritualists etc..


look at all the Scialists govs today and in the past.
:rolleyes:

[TTe5]

If we get rid of the state right now, first of all the corporations, having no state to keep them in check, will move to claim complete control over society, by force if necessary.

Not true. But don&#39;t start debating me on this point - if you want you can make a seperate topic.


Also, because there will be no institution to regulate class antagonism and impose law and order, there will most likely be a massive backlash against the ruling class by the lower classes. The ruling classes will then employ the help of the corporations in subduing this rebellion. There will be civil war, chaos and genocide.

Why? What class antagonism? The only agent of war, chaos and genocide is the state - not corporations. Once the state is gone, there will be peace.


As for the USSR, I have already explained he case with them, but you more or less chose to ignore it.

Yes, I know all about that. The USSR was more or less a feudal society and transition to socialism would have been impossible because technology hadn&#39;t advanced far enough (according to Marxist theory).

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Not true. But don&#39;t start debating me on this point - if you want you can make a seperate topic.
Sure, why not


Why? What class antagonism? The only agent of war, chaos and genocide is the state - not corporations. Once the state is gone, there will be peace.
That&#39;s not true at all. The main agents of war and genocide are want and hatred. If we remove the state today, there will be nothing to stop the millions of poor worldwide engaging in acts of horrendous violence against those who have oppressed and exploited them for so long. There are abundant examples of cases where granting too much freedom to exploited and embittered social, economic or ethnic groupings at once has resulted in genocide.



Yes, I know all about that. The USSR was more or less a feudal society and transition to socialism would have been impossible because technology hadn&#39;t advanced far enough (according to Marxist theory).
Thank you.

[TTe5]

That&#39;s not true at all. The main agents of war and genocide are want and hatred. If we remove the state today, there will be nothing to stop the millions of poor worldwide engaging in acts of horrendous violence against those who have oppressed and exploited them for so long. There are abundant examples of cases where granting too much freedom to exploited and embittered social, economic or ethnic groupings at once has resulted in genocide.

You&#39;re operating under the assumption that those who do not head a business or are sitting on a board of a corporation are being exploited. I do not believe that capitalism equals exploitation.

Once the state is gone those who are poor will have a better chance of improving their situation. They will get their just rewards for the work they do.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

You&#39;re operating under the assumption that those who do not head a business or are sitting on a board of a corporation are being exploited. I do not believe that capitalism equals exploitation.
Well, the matter of whether or not they are being "exploited" is open to major discussion and debate, one which I am not prepared to open up right now.

However, it is true that under capitalism some are exponentially more rich than others, and the only thing prevent this ratio from getting even more uneven is the state, through taxes and welfare systems. However, the fact remains that there are hundred of millions of poor and thousands of rich, and that globally speaking there is an insane wealth gap existent under capitalism. And regardless of whether or not capitalism started it (it is open to debate whether or not it was the colonialists of pre-capitalism Europe or the imperialist of capitalist Europe that started it), capitalism has certainly prolonged and worsened the situation.



Once the state is gone those who are poor will have a better chance of improving their situation. They will get their just rewards for the work they do.
How do you know? Once the state is gone there will be no minimum wage laws to tell the business owners how much to pay their workers and no welfare to provide an alternative to unfair treatment and unfair pay, so business owners can basically offer the workers a barely sustaining wage for their work and the workers will take it, because a life of misery is better than death in their eyes.

[red team]

Once the state is gone those who are poor will have a better chance of improving their situation. They will get their just rewards for the work they do.

How will you insure that these business won&#39;t hire mercenaries to insure their dominant position when negotiating with labour and to protect "their" property?

Blackwater Mercenaries (http://www.blackwaterusa.com/securityconsulting/)

[Tungsten]

RedStar1916

That&#39;s ridiculous. I never said a Socialist government would invade nations without provocation and send Communists, homosexuals, Jews and other minorities to concentration camps to be gassed now, did I?
If enforced equality is justifiable by means of democracy, then all the above is too. This is why I oppose direct democracy.

Yes, only democracy would be much more direct and the media and education system would be less biased in favor of capitalism, obviously.
It isn&#39;t biased in favour of any particular ideology. The media follows whatever suits it. Did the democratically elected Nazi party end "media bias"?

:blink: What? When did I express a desire to kill people for "working smart"?
It prevents you from being sent to the great utopia in the sky by someone who works twice as hard as you for one tenth your salary.

A freudian slip perhaps?

So your arguement is that a true Socialist government can never be established because... a true Socialist government can never be established.
Just like I can&#39;t shit gold because I can&#39;t shit gold. It&#39;s utopian and unrealisable- any attempts to make it work will not work.

Read the post you quoted.
That doesn&#39;t answer the question. If you&#39;re implying that direct democracy is somehow going to prevent an intrusive state, then you&#39;re deluded.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

If enforced equality is justifiable by means of democracy, then all the above is too. This is why I oppose direct democracy.
You&#39;re forgetting that Hitler had done away with democracy in Germany by the time the Holocaust was under way. Also, many German citizens were not even aware of the full extent of the brutality their government were inflicting on the Jews.

Also, if you oppose democracy because it can allegedly be used to justify the above, what form of government do you support? I&#39;m just curious; I actualy don&#39;t have the time to start arguing on another front. However, it seems odd to me that you would turn around and say your problem is with democracy, when in fact the majority of claims that are made against us Communists on this board (and certainly in this thread) revolve around the "inherent totalitarianism" of Socialism.



It isn&#39;t biased in favour of any particular ideology. The media follows whatever suits it. Did the democratically elected Nazi party end "media bias"?
Mainstream western media is most certainly biased in favor of capitalism and the US, especially as regards the "war on terrorism". And yes, the media follows whatever suits it, which is whatever will increase profits, not necessarily fair and unbiased reporting.

And no, the Nazis did not end media bias. What can I say; we&#39;re not Nazis. If you don&#39;t understand that then you really shouldn&#39;t be on this board.



It prevents you from being sent to the great utopia in the sky by someone who works twice as hard as you for one tenth your salary.
Once again: :blink:

How the hell does that imply I have a desire to kill people for working smart?&#33; Fisrt of all, it should be stated that I myself do not work twice as hard as you for one tenth your salary. I&#39;ve recently quit my job so I can concentrate on my exams in school, but even after that I plan to study law in college, so I&#39;m not exactly going to spend the rest of my life in the mines.

But there are many who are going to spend the rest of their lives in the mines, or in the factory, or in the fields or whatever, working their asses of for a barely sustaining wage. And a lot of them are quite bitter about it, and would only be even more bitter if they saw the luxury in which CEOs and the like live. So it&#39;s not some subconscious desire to kill smart people, it&#39;s actually commonsense (and I guess a small bit of sociology or something). And it&#39;s happened before.



Just like I can&#39;t shit gold because I can&#39;t shit gold. It&#39;s utopian and unrealisable- any attempts to make it work will not work.
And capitalism can&#39;t work becasue capitalism can&#39;t work.

And the US cannot bring freedom to other countries because the US cannot bring freedom to other countries.

And the world cannot live to see September 18th 2006 because the world cannot live to see September 18th 2006.

(The last statement being a proof that, although this logic may be true in some cases, it is fundamentally flawed.)


That doesn&#39;t answer the question.
In response:

Originally posted by Me

In reality, there will most likely not be a monetary system under socialism, there will either be a rationing system or a bartering system, either of which would tend to the specific needs of society and ensure there are none left with surplus goods, and even if there are a few left with surplus goods, they would have no trading value because everyone would have everything they need provided to them by the state, and therefore the demand for the surplus goods in question would be non-existant.

[Tungsten]

RedStar1916

Also, if you oppose democracy because it can allegedly be used to justify the above, what form of government do you support?
Limited democracy. It&#39;s one where you don&#39;t get to lobby the government to rob others on your behalf.

However, it seems odd to me that you would turn around and say your problem is with democracy, when in fact the majority of claims that are made against us Communists on this board (and certainly in this thread) revolve around the "inherent totalitarianism" of Socialism.
Direct democracy is usually little better than totalitarianism in practice.

Mainstream western media is most certainly biased in favor of capitalism and the US, especially as regards the "war on terrorism".
You lie. There is no pro-US media bias. Certainly not in my country and from what I gather, Fox is the only channel in the US that seems to offer a conservative-leaning pro-war stance. I don&#39;t support the war, incidently.

In reality, there will most likely not be a monetary system under socialism, there will either be a rationing system or a bartering system, either of which would tend to the specific needs of society and ensure there are none left with surplus goods, and even if there are a few left with surplus goods, they would have no trading value because everyone would have everything they need provided to them by the state, and therefore the demand for the surplus goods in question would be non-existant.
Rationed by who? Who assesses the needs? Why who else but the massive bureaucratic system I mentioned. We can&#39;t all do it between us; there are too many of us and there would be chaos. Like I said, unrealisable and the result won&#39;t be what you think it will be.

[red team]

Rationed by who? Who assesses the needs? Why who else but the massive bureaucratic system I mentioned. We can&#39;t all do it between us; there are too many of us and there would be chaos. Like I said, unrealisable and the result won&#39;t be what you think it will be.

You have this wonderful, magical box in front of you that serves you immediate information upon request and you don&#39;t know how this could be applied toward the dynamic, real-time balancing of consumer demand with supplies? You are truly blind.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Direct democracy is usually little better than totalitarianism in practice.
Indeed it has been in the past; most likely because it has been applied prematurely.


You lie. There is no pro-US media bias. Certainly not in my country and from what I gather, Fox is the only channel in the US that seems to offer a conservative-leaning pro-war stance. I don&#39;t support the war, incidently.
In that case, you lie.


Rationed by who? Who assesses the needs? Why who else but the massive bureaucratic system I mentioned. We can&#39;t all do it between us; there are too many of us and there would be chaos. Like I said, unrealisable and the result won&#39;t be what you think it will be.
That&#39;s like saying Communism will fail because we can&#39;t all make furniture or produce food between us. Of course we can&#39;t all do a certain job between us, there will be certain people for certain jobs, and this includes assessment of society&#39;s needs.