Individual Rights in Capitalism

[JC1]

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.

Some square said this is what capitalists want. I as a C think dat of course a man has a right do what ever he wants as long as it dosent effect anyone but himself. No coercion.

My question ...

... How can Capital fuckin' suppourt individual rights ?

In every country in the world there are huge gangs of men dedecicated to beat me up and imprison me if I put a psycoactive substance into my body.

Hell every country I am co-erced to work in the name of individual rights ! In Capitalism, the right to accumulate capital on the backs of others is the above the right to life.

If I dont let some one scab off my labour, I starve.

LTV is the fucking most advanced economic doctrine! What you know about that!

[colonelguppy]

i normally stay away from the philosphical aspect of politics as its ultimately pointless in debate, but to hell with it


In every country in the world there are huge gangs of men dedecicated to beat me up and imprison me if I put a psycoactive substance into my body.

wait i thought we were talking about capitalism not social statism


Hell every country I am co-erced to work in the name of individual rights !

no you work if you want to reap the eocnomic benefits of an economic system.


In Capitalism, the right to accumulate capital on the backs of others is the above the right to life.

no ones going to legally kill you in capitalism


If I dont let some one scab off my labour, I starve.

so what?

[Avtomatov]

so what?

thats coercion, and wage-slavery.


no ones going to legally kill you in capitalism


Really? You never heard of war? Like Iraq and vietnam. And what about those capitalist governments we had in places like chile?

[JC1]

wait i thought we were talking about capitalism not social statism

Are you pretending that most drugs are legal. More pig fantasy.


no you work if you want to reap the eocnomic benefits of an economic system.

No. Im forced to work, otherwise I starve.


no ones going to legally kill you in capitalism

The police have beaten me pretty badly. They killed freinds of mine. And how bout the army ?


so what?

you fuckin pig, prolly complain about welfare recepients and pan handlers and complain about there parasitism, but you admit that wagery is slavery and still defend capitalism.

[TTe5]

thats coercion, and wage-slavery.

No, it's not. You can go live in a commune with like minded people if you wanted to - nobody is stopping you. If I wanted to start a business in a communist society I wouldn't be able to. I could quite possibly face physical coercion.

[TTe5]

Are you pretending that most drugs are legal. More pig fantasy.

That is a result of the state.


No. Im forced to work, otherwise I starve.

No one is forcing you to work. It is completely voluntary. You can go live in a hippie commune if you wanted to. If you want to do nothing you don't deserve to get the necessities of life. You can't get something for nothing.


The police have beaten me pretty badly. They killed freinds of mine. And how bout the army ?

That has everything to do with the states' monopoly on force. Attack the state, not capitalism.

[colonelguppy]

so what?

thats coercion, and wage-slavery.

no its not its reality, you don't work you starve. forcing other people to compensate for this reality is slavery.



no ones going to legally kill you in capitalism


Really? You never heard of war? Like Iraq and vietnam. And what about those capitalist governments we had in places like chile?

yeah because socialist societies never go to war. war isn't inherent to either system so making it a debate point is stupid.

[colonelguppy]

wait i thought we were talking about capitalism not social statism

Are you pretending that most drugs are legal. More pig fantasy.

no i'm not. your pretending that drug laws are inherent to capitalism which is obviously not true.



no you work if you want to reap the eocnomic benefits of an economic system.

No. Im forced to work, otherwise I starve.

thats not force. they can't make you work, the only reason you do is because you want the benefits that come form work.



no ones going to legally kill you in capitalism

The police have beaten me pretty badly. They killed freinds of mine. And how bout the army ?

ok well you assume that you didn't deserve said treatment and also that this is inherent in a capitalist system. it isn't.


you fuckin pig, prolly complain about welfare recepients and pan handlers and complain about there parasitism, but you admit that wagery is slavery and still defend capitalism.

no i actually know the proper definition for slavery. welfare recipients suck, i don't mind pan handlers that's voluntary exchange.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:01 PM


no you work if you want to reap the eocnomic benefits of an economic system.

No. Im forced to work, otherwise I starve.

thats not force. they can't make you work, the only reason you do is because you want the benefits that come form work.
"Work or you will die?" And that's not force? If you argue that you must work to live then you don't understand fully how we could live under a more EFFICIENT system.

[Avtomatov]

yeah because socialist societies never go to war. war isn't inherent to either system so making it a debate point is stupid.


Communist societies dont go to war.


No, it's not. You can go live in a commune with like minded people if you wanted to - nobody is stopping you.

No one is forcing you to work. It is completely voluntary. You can go live in a hippie commune if you wanted to.


Can a third world peasant go live in a hippie commune? No, peasants dont got money or land. Money and Land is Capital, so i should say they dont have capital. You cant do shit without Capital. They are forced to work. And the ruling class pretends it is not coercion, that it is natural, just to ease their concience.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 17 2006, 05:08 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 17 2006, 05:08 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 10:01 PM


no you work if you want to reap the eocnomic benefits of an economic system.

No. Im forced to work, otherwise I starve.

thats not force. they can't make you work, the only reason you do is because you want the benefits that come form work.
"Work or you will die?" And that's not force? If you argue that you must work to live then you don't understand fully how we could live under a more EFFICIENT system. [/b]
no, its not force form the system. its nature.

a more effecient system would be where you don't have to work to live? yeah good luck with that.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:08 PM

yeah because socialist societies never go to war. war isn't inherent to either system so making it a debate point is stupid.


Communist societies dont go to war.
yeah and ideally neither would capitalist societies but that doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

[Avtomatov]

yeah and ideally neither would capitalist societies but that doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

No, war is inherent in capitalism. Peace is inherent in communism.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:16 PM

yeah and ideally neither would capitalist societies but that doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

No, war is inherent in capitalism. Peace is inherent in communism.
Not that I disagree with you (or agree with you for that matter) but you should really try to back up your points with something.

[Avtomatov]

no, its not force form the system. its nature.

a more effecient system would be where you don't have to work to live? yeah good luck with that.

Its just semantics. The fact is there is coercion. And communism is about minimizing coercion. Its a fundamental limitation in libertarian thought that they blaim the system when it exerts force on the population, but not to blame the system when it is set up as to allow force on the population. Capitalism is about false lieing and pretending, its about shifting the blame to something(nature) which we can not retaliate against.

Go ahead, pretend its nature. Its easier to feal at peace with the capitalist system.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:16 PM

yeah and ideally neither would capitalist societies but that doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

No, war is inherent in capitalism. Peace is inherent in communism.
yeah good luck with that.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 17 2006, 10:25 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 17 2006, 10:25 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 05:16 PM

yeah and ideally neither would capitalist societies but that doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

No, war is inherent in capitalism. Peace is inherent in communism.
yeah good luck with that. [/b]
Oh i know, its so much easier to lie down and take it. Its so easy to just be automatons then to actually strive for something more. You know i think you are right. The fuck with reaching my potential as a human being. Communism is stupid.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:20 PM

no, its not force form the system. its nature.

a more effecient system would be where you don't have to work to live? yeah good luck with that.

Its just semantics. The fact is there is coercion. And communism is about minimizing coercion. Its a fundamental limitation in libertarian thought that they blaim the system when it exerts force on the population, but not to blame the system when it is set up as to allow force on the population. Capitalism is about false lieing and pretending, its about shifting the blame to something(nature) which we can not retaliate against.

Go ahead, pretend its nature. Its easier to feal at peace with the capitalist system.
no, every livign thing must work in order to survive. humans are no different. i really don't see what your grounds are for the claim that i'm pretending about anyhting.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Avtomatov+Sep 17 2006, 05:27 PM--> (Avtomatov @ Sep 17 2006, 05:27 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:25 PM

[email protected] 17 2006, 05:16 PM

yeah and ideally neither would capitalist societies but that doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

No, war is inherent in capitalism. Peace is inherent in communism.
yeah good luck with that.
Oh i know, its so much easier to lie down and take it. Its so easy to just be automatons then to actually strive for something more. You know i think you are right. The fuck with reaching my potential as a human being. Communism is stupid. [/b]
no but it's smarter not to base your idealogy on baseless maxims.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 17 2006, 10:28 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 17 2006, 10:28 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 05:20 PM

no, its not force form the system. its nature.

a more effecient system would be where you don't have to work to live? yeah good luck with that.

Its just semantics. The fact is there is coercion. And communism is about minimizing coercion. Its a fundamental limitation in libertarian thought that they blaim the system when it exerts force on the population, but not to blame the system when it is set up as to allow force on the population. Capitalism is about false lieing and pretending, its about shifting the blame to something(nature) which we can not retaliate against.

Go ahead, pretend its nature. Its easier to feal at peace with the capitalist system.
no, every livign thing must work in order to survive. humans are no different. i really don't see what your grounds are for the claim that i'm pretending about anyhting. [/b]
You must work to survive. But must you work for an artificially low wage. Must you work with a social parasite standing on your back, sucking up the surplus labour?

In capitalism you must. Not so in communism.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 17 2006, 10:30 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 17 2006, 10:30 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:25 PM

[email protected] 17 2006, 05:16 PM

yeah and ideally neither would capitalist societies but that doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

No, war is inherent in capitalism. Peace is inherent in communism.
yeah good luck with that.
Oh i know, its so much easier to lie down and take it. Its so easy to just be automatons then to actually strive for something more. You know i think you are right. The fuck with reaching my potential as a human being. Communism is stupid.
no but it's smarter not to base your idealogy on baseless maxims. [/b]
Communism has no states, there is no exploitation. Capitalism has exploitation always, and it must have states/artificial borders to aid this exploitation. Each state has an army, when there no states there is no armies. And as i said capitalism must have states, and it must have armies. Its very unlikely there would be no war in capitalism, as America does not have control of the police in Venezual, so it must go to war if they want the Venezualen people to obey capitalism.

Capitalism would fall apart without war. War is used by capitalist states to slow down the rise of socialism and communism.

[colonelguppy]

You must work to survive. But must you work for an artificially low wage.

"artificially low wage"? is there some kind of fundemental law of nature dictating wages? people earn there wages based off how well their skills serve society.


Must you work with a social parasite standing on your back, sucking up the surplus labour?

no, if you have options than you don't. if you don't have options, then obviously you need the parasite so it isn't infact a parasite at all.

[JC1]

No, it's not. You can go live in a commune with like minded people if you wanted to - nobody is stopping you. If I wanted to start a business in a communist society I wouldn't be able to. I could quite possibly face physical coercion.

For a communune to survive it has to make profit. It just becomes a fuckin' capitalist enterprise.



That has everything to do with the states' monopoly on force. Attack the state, not capitalism.

Capitalism cant exist without a state. If it were feasible it would have happened, the ruling class dosent spend the kind of money they do on the state if it was unprofitable.


You can't get something for nothing.

Why not ? When i rob and steal from the capitalists and the petit bourgoise, im just living out the capitalist ethic of self-intrest.


yeah because socialist societies never go to war. war isn't inherent to either system so making it a debate point is stupid.

Read some fucking economics buddy. War is directly linked to the crises of overproduction.


no its not its reality, you don't work you starve. forcing other people to compensate for this reality is slavery.

No, you see I wouldnt have to be co-erced by hunger if i controled the fruits of my labour.


no, its not force form the system. its nature.

Man you anarcho-capitalists keep saying its all becuase of the state and the state is not a inhernt feature of capitalism, and then say this. If the economic system is an inherent result of nature, then how come the same is not true of politics ?

The state was invented by capitalism, basicly. Before the advent of capitalism, the state had never articulated beyond groups of men taking taxes.

colonelguppy (and all other anarcho-caps) I beg you stop FREEBASIN !

[colonelguppy]

Communism has no states, there is no exploitation. Capitalism has exploitation always, and it must have states/artificial borders to aid this exploitation. Each state has an army, when there no states there is no armies.

communism has no state, however it does have societies. whats to stop one society from going over to another and taking all their shit and enlaving them?

the claim that communism doesn't have a state is dubious at best, obviously there is some kind of social ordering if there is collective ownership of everything and democracy. once order arrives you have a state.


And as i said capitalism must have states, and it must have armies. Its very unlikely there would be no war in capitalism, as America does not have control of the police in Venezual, so it must go to war if they want the Venezualen people to obey capitalism.

i never said there wouldn't be, i merely contested the fact that war wouldn't exist in ocmmunism. although in capitalism, it is often much more benefitial to partake in trade with a country as opposed to war, whether poeple relize this or not is irrelevent, eliminating capitalism won't fix this.


Capitalism would fall apart without war. War is used by capitalist states to slow down the rise of socialism and communism.

not really, communist states have consistently fallen without having to go to war with capitalist states.

[Avtomatov]

communism has no state, however it does have societies. whats to stop one society from going over to another and taking all their shit and enlaving them?

the claim that communism doesn't have a state is dubious at best, obviously there is some kind of social ordering if there is collective ownership of everything and democracy. once order arrives you have a state.

"The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms." -V.I. Lenin

Socialism is known as the proletarian state, or semi-state, which is put in place to opress the bourgeoise. After that we have communism, where there is no classes, therefore no need for a state. There would still be police to prevent the hypothetical situation you describe from happening, the difference is that the police would protect society from harmful things, instead of protecting class intirests.

[colonelguppy]

Why not ? When i rob and steal from the capitalists and the petit bourgoise, im just living out the capitalist ethic of self-intrest.

i think he meant you cna't produce something from nothing, you would have to leech off the work of others.


Read some fucking economics buddy. War is directly linked to the crises of overproduction.

no its not. war a is a political issue often derived from disputes over economic recources, changing how the eocnomic recources are redistributed in each society will not change this.


No, you see I wouldnt have to be co-erced by hunger if i controled the fruits of my labour.

but your coercing someone else by taking the fruits of his. the capital required for you to work doesn't belong to you so obviously you won't get all the profit.


Man you anarcho-capitalists keep saying its all becuase of the state and the state is not a inhernt feature of capitalism, and then say this. If the economic system is an inherent result of nature, then how come the same is not true of politics ?

i have no idea what your talking about, i'm not an anarcho capitalist, anarchists are stupid.


The state was invented by capitalism, basicly. Before the advent of capitalism, the state had never articulated beyond groups of men taking taxes.

no the state was holding capitalism and markets back untill feudalism desolved, its a littl ebit more extensive than "groups of men taking taxes".

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:55 PM

communism has no state, however it does have societies. whats to stop one society from going over to another and taking all their shit and enlaving them?

the claim that communism doesn't have a state is dubious at best, obviously there is some kind of social ordering if there is collective ownership of everything and democracy. once order arrives you have a state.

"The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms." -V.I. Lenin

Socialism is known as the proletarian state, or semi-state, which is put in place to opress the bourgeoise. After that we have communism, where there is no classes, therefore no need for a state. There would still be police to prevent the hypothetical situation you describe from happening, the difference is that the police would protect society from harmful things, instead of protecting class intirests.
and why would they do that? if you have police and order as you describe you have a state.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 17 2006, 10:58 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 17 2006, 10:58 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 05:55 PM

communism has no state, however it does have societies. whats to stop one society from going over to another and taking all their shit and enlaving them?

the claim that communism doesn't have a state is dubious at best, obviously there is some kind of social ordering if there is collective ownership of everything and democracy. once order arrives you have a state.

"The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms." -V.I. Lenin

Socialism is known as the proletarian state, or semi-state, which is put in place to opress the bourgeoise. After that we have communism, where there is no classes, therefore no need for a state. There would still be police to prevent the hypothetical situation you describe from happening, the difference is that the police would protect society from harmful things, instead of protecting class intirests.
and why would they do that? if you have police and order as you describe you have a state. [/b]
You dont understand the marxist use of the term: state.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Avtomatov+Sep 17 2006, 06:09 PM--> (Avtomatov @ Sep 17 2006, 06:09 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:58 PM

[email protected] 17 2006, 05:55 PM

communism has no state, however it does have societies. whats to stop one society from going over to another and taking all their shit and enlaving them?

the claim that communism doesn't have a state is dubious at best, obviously there is some kind of social ordering if there is collective ownership of everything and democracy. once order arrives you have a state.

"The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms." -V.I. Lenin

Socialism is known as the proletarian state, or semi-state, which is put in place to opress the bourgeoise. After that we have communism, where there is no classes, therefore no need for a state. There would still be police to prevent the hypothetical situation you describe from happening, the difference is that the police would protect society from harmful things, instead of protecting class intirests.
and why would they do that? if you have police and order as you describe you have a state.
You dont understand the marxist use of the term: state. [/b]
i understand that marxists often don't really know what a state is.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 17 2006, 11:16 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 17 2006, 11:16 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:58 PM

[email protected] 17 2006, 05:55 PM

communism has no state, however it does have societies. whats to stop one society from going over to another and taking all their shit and enlaving them?

the claim that communism doesn't have a state is dubious at best, obviously there is some kind of social ordering if there is collective ownership of everything and democracy. once order arrives you have a state.

"The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms." -V.I. Lenin

Socialism is known as the proletarian state, or semi-state, which is put in place to opress the bourgeoise. After that we have communism, where there is no classes, therefore no need for a state. There would still be police to prevent the hypothetical situation you describe from happening, the difference is that the police would protect society from harmful things, instead of protecting class intirests.
and why would they do that? if you have police and order as you describe you have a state.
You dont understand the marxist use of the term: state.
i understand that marxists often don't really know what a state is. [/b]
Youre entire argument on this thread is based on semantics.

[negative potential]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:56 PM
[no the state was holding capitalism and markets back untill feudalism desolved, its a littl ebit more extensive than "groups of men taking taxes".

Actually, state intervention was instrumental to the creation of a large, propertyless mass of wage laborers compelled to sell their ability to work in order to survive.

Capitalism as a social system is dependent upon the existence of wage labor. That presupposes the actual existence of a potential wage laboring class. In early modern European history, the expropriation of the independent peasantry was a necessary precondition for the creation of a wage-laboring class.

This is not controversial, it's a well-documented and universally acknowledged historical fact. I can understand if you haven't had the time to extensively study the emergence of capitalism as a social system, but if that's the case you should probably back off from making authoritative statements one way or the other.

A good introductory text on this is the Cambridge University Press volume "The Transition to Capitalism in Early Modern Europe by Robert S. Duplessis. The same publisher also offers a collected anthology of the Brenner Debate, edited by T.H. Aston.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 17 2006, 10:08 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 17 2006, 10:08 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 10:01 PM


no you work if you want to reap the eocnomic benefits of an economic system.

No. Im forced to work, otherwise I starve.

thats not force. they can't make you work, the only reason you do is because you want the benefits that come form work.
"Work or you will die?" And that's not force? If you argue that you must work to live then you don't understand fully how we could live under a more EFFICIENT system. [/b]

I have yet to see the explanation of how this "Efficient" system works, when everyone gets what they "need" (however defined), yet nobody has to provide it.

[red team]

yet nobody has to provide it

Things that can be provided can be accumulated. Even knowledge that allows for material objects to follow discrete steps in making other useful material objects can be accumulated. Books are one example and software is another. Using accumulated knowledge and accumulated methods of making things (technology) there's no reason for anybody to be left out of participating in society simply because of the profit motive of somebody else. That is the advantage of accumulation with knowledge as well as with technology. Nobody needs to reinvent things once they're done being invented. So there's your answer. It's invented or discovered already so nobody else needs to provide it. But, here's the fly in the ointment. Capitalism regards everything as being an expendable asset even accumulated knowledge so patents on useful knowledge and technology that could be open to everybody in which to use and further build upon is restricted causing what used to be naturally abundant intellectual resources to be artificially made scarce because in a debt system greater scarcity equals greater value. Profit efficiency is an obsolete criteria of an obsolete system.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Avtomatov+Sep 17 2006, 07:11 PM--> (Avtomatov @ Sep 17 2006, 07:11 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:58 PM

[email protected] 17 2006, 05:55 PM

communism has no state, however it does have societies. whats to stop one society from going over to another and taking all their shit and enlaving them?

the claim that communism doesn't have a state is dubious at best, obviously there is some kind of social ordering if there is collective ownership of everything and democracy. once order arrives you have a state.

"The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms." -V.I. Lenin

Socialism is known as the proletarian state, or semi-state, which is put in place to opress the bourgeoise. After that we have communism, where there is no classes, therefore no need for a state. There would still be police to prevent the hypothetical situation you describe from happening, the difference is that the police would protect society from harmful things, instead of protecting class intirests.
and why would they do that? if you have police and order as you describe you have a state.
You dont understand the marxist use of the term: state.
i understand that marxists often don't really know what a state is.
Youre entire argument on this thread is based on semantics. [/b]
no its not i'm saying there is a state in communism and that such states are very cabable of war.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by negative potential+Sep 17 2006, 07:13 PM--> (negative potential @ Sep 17 2006, 07:13 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 10:56 PM
[no the state was holding capitalism and markets back untill feudalism desolved, its a littl ebit more extensive than "groups of men taking taxes".

Actually, state intervention was instrumental to the creation of a large, propertyless mass of wage laborers compelled to sell their ability to work in order to survive.

Capitalism as a social system is dependent upon the existence of wage labor. That presupposes the actual existence of a potential wage laboring class. In early modern European history, the expropriation of the independent peasantry was a necessary precondition for the creation of a wage-laboring class.

This is not controversial, it's a well-documented and universally acknowledged historical fact. I can understand if you haven't had the time to extensively study the emergence of capitalism as a social system, but if that's the case you should probably back off from making authoritative statements one way or the other.

A good introductory text on this is the Cambridge University Press volume "The Transition to Capitalism in Early Modern Europe by Robert S. Duplessis. The same publisher also offers a collected anthology of the Brenner Debate, edited by T.H. Aston. [/b]
yes i know how it happened, all i said was that the political-economic powers of feudal lords didn't promote what would could be called a free market.

[Janus]

no its not i'm saying there is a state in communism and that such states are very cabable of war.
There can be a Communist state in which the Communist Party holds power but there is no state in communism.

[colonelguppy]

if theres order theres a form of governing, which implies a state. if everyone has equal ownership of all the capital in a said area, there obviously has to be some kind of instituiton guaranteeing this or else the notion holds no real weight and would never work.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:58 PM
if theres order theres a form of governing, which implies a state. if everyone has equal ownership of all the capital in a said area, there obviously has to be some kind of instituiton guaranteeing this or else the notion holds no real weight and would never work.
The state is not the same as government.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Avtomatov+Sep 18 2006, 05:15 PM--> (Avtomatov @ Sep 18 2006, 05:15 PM)
[email protected] 18 2006, 08:58 PM
if theres order theres a form of governing, which implies a state. if everyone has equal ownership of all the capital in a said area, there obviously has to be some kind of instituiton guaranteeing this or else the notion holds no real weight and would never work.
The state is not the same as government. [/b]
you're right it's the word, for societies, encompassing both peoples and government. for the purposes of this arguement, the difference is negligable.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 18 2006, 10:30 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 18 2006, 10:30 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 05:15 PM

[email protected] 18 2006, 08:58 PM
if theres order theres a form of governing, which implies a state. if everyone has equal ownership of all the capital in a said area, there obviously has to be some kind of instituiton guaranteeing this or else the notion holds no real weight and would never work.
The state is not the same as government.
you're right it's the word, for societies, encompassing both peoples and government. for the purposes of this arguement, the difference is negligable. [/b]
You still dont understand. You should try reading The State and Revolution by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

State and Revolution by lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)

[colonelguppy]

what, you can't explain it? i don't need to read a book to realize that communism needs order to operate, any society does.

[Avtomatov]

You dont need the state, as marxists define the word, to have order.

[Janus]

if everyone has equal ownership of all the capital in a said area, there obviously has to be some kind of instituiton guaranteeing this or else the notion holds no real weight and would never work.
There may need to be a state in the beginning to help with transition but the economical and political development would soon make it obsolete.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:48 PM

if everyone has equal ownership of all the capital in a said area, there obviously has to be some kind of instituiton guaranteeing this or else the notion holds no real weight and would never work.
There may need to be a state in the beginning to help with transition but the economical and political development would soon make it obsolete.
explain.

[Janus]

explain.
Communism is dependent on strong technological development and mass action by the people. Once productive forces are advanced enough and class antagonisms are gone, you will no longer need a state to regulate the transition. Thus, it will wither away.

[colonelguppy]

thats the problem with communist theory, it assumes the root of all strife is class division, which isn't true. people who steal from the system don't always need it and murderers are not always victims of the system. rapists seldom rape for economic reasons. the same social issues that exist today will still exist under communism, and of course there would be many who would resent the system and try to work it to their benefit.

[Janus]

thats the problem with communist theory, it assumes the root of all strife is class division
Communism is based on a materialist perception of the world. Class struggle plays a big part in it but it doesn't explain everything.


which isn't true. people who steal from the system don't always need it
Accumulation of goods so that they can feel a bit safer. Furthermore, there are kleptomaniacs out there but this problem begins to delve a little into psychology.


rapists seldom rape for economic reasons
A lot of people who committ such crimes have anti-social disorders that generally result from their childhood. Now, rapes and murders will probably still occur in communism albeit on a much smaller scale, the local community can still deal with these crimes if not deal with the problems that cause such things at an early age.


the same social issues that exist today will still exist under communism
Many social problems will not exist, mainly the economical ones.


and of course there would be many who would resent the system and try to work it to their benefit.
How can they? They cannot accumulate capital or steal anything. The most they could do is try to subvert other people.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 09:10 PM



Communism is based on a materialist perception of the world. Class struggle plays a big part in it but it doesn't explain everything.

so your going to brainwash people into not wanting stuff?


Accumulation of goods so that they can feel a bit safer. Furthermore, there are kleptomaniacs out there but this problem begins to delve a little into psychology.

... or because they just really like having things


A lot of people who committ such crimes have anti-social disorders that generally result from their childhood. Now, rapes and murders will probably still occur in communism albeit on a much smaller scale, the local community can still deal with these crimes if not deal with the problems that cause such things at an early age.


i htink your oversimplifying a complex social and pschological issue buteven so... how are they going to effectively do anything if theres no state to operate through? vigilante justice? swell...


How can they? They cannot accumulate capital or steal anything. The most they could do is try to subvert other people.

how can't they? its not like theres much stopping them.

[Janus]

so your going to brainwash people into not wanting stuff?
:blink: People need "stuff" such as food and water to survive. They will need them and will receive them in a communist society.


or because they just really like having things
There is always a reason why someone has things whether he/she accumulates it to look good or to show off or to store up "just in case". There will be no need to do any of these in a communist society because it is a free access system.


how are they going to effectively do anything if theres no state to operate through? vigilante justice? swell...
The people themselves. They can form militias to deal with external and internal threats.


its not like theres much stopping them.
Hoarding up stuff would be pointless as you couldn't sell it to anyone since there is no money and no one would buy it from you anyways 'cause they could just get it themselves for free.

[colonelguppy]

:blink: People need "stuff" such as food and water to survive. They will need them and will receive them in a communist society.

yeah. i don't know alot of people who are satisfied with just getting the bare necesseties.


There is always a reason why someone has things whether he/she accumulates it to look good or to show off or to store up "just in case". There will be no need to do any of these in a communist society because it is a free access system.

nothing is free. communism doesn't eliminate scarcity, there will still be goods that are more valuable than others and are thus worth hoarding.


The people themselves. They can form militias to deal with external and internal threats.

so they will just give up their power when they're not needed? they will always be objective in their pursuit for justice?


Hoarding up stuff would be pointless as you couldn't sell it to anyone since there is no money and no one would buy it from you anyways 'cause they could just get it themselves for free.

no things will still have value and believe it or not the communist production will not be able to provide everything for everyone. this is reality, communism isn't magic.

[Janus]

i don't know alot of people who are satisfied with just getting the bare necesseties.
They are not limited only to the bare neccessities. A communist society is not a spartan one.


nothing is free
In capitalism then yes.


communism doesn't eliminate scarcity
Communism itself does not but the society which it creates prevents the need for competition and exploitation; two major problems which cause it. And like I said, communism requires advanced productive sources in order to properly function.


there will still be goods that are more valuable than others and are thus worth hoarding.
They are valuable in terms of people's desire to get them but like I said, there is no reason to hoard it because you cannot sell it or make a profit from it.


so they will just give up their power when they're not needed?
The people will always have power.


they will always be objective in their pursuit for justice?
They will be from a broad spectrum of people.


this is reality, communism isn't magic.
No one said it was. What I am saying is that communism provides a society that helps to eliminate many socioeconomic problems that we face today and seeks to make society as egalitarian as possible. There may still be food shortages and other such problems but these can be dealt with through innovation,technology, and the people themselves rather than a small elite class.

[colonelguppy]

nothing is free
In capitalism then yes.

what? no, nothing is ever free, usable goods require work and energy to be spent, this combined with natural scarcity puts a cost on everything


Communism itself does not but the society which it creates prevents the need for competition and exploitation; two major problems which cause it. And like I said, communism requires advanced productive sources in order to properly function.

competition doesn't cause scarcity, infact it results in more effecient ways of gathering recources thus lessening scarcity. it doesn't matter how advanced the industry is, as long as there is a finite number of things scarcity wil always be an issue.


They are valuable in terms of people's desire to get them but like I said, there is no reason to hoard it because you cannot sell it or make a profit from it.

why not? whats stopping them from doing such things?


The people will always have power.

is that a verifiable fact or wishful thinking?


They will be from a broad spectrum of people.

they will? even if they are, how does this guarantee any level of objectivity?


No one said it was. What I am saying is that communism provides a society that helps to eliminate many socioeconomic problems that we face today and seeks to make society as egalitarian as possible. There may still be food shortages and other such problems but these can be dealt with through innovation,technology, and the people themselves rather than a small elite class.

there are still alot of unanswered question about it, its all mostly theory.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 18 2006, 03:59 AM

yet nobody has to provide it

Things that can be provided can be accumulated. Even knowledge that allows for material objects to follow discrete steps in making other useful material objects can be accumulated. Books are one example and software is another. Using accumulated knowledge and accumulated methods of making things (technology) there's no reason for anybody to be left out of participating in society simply because of the profit motive of somebody else. That is the advantage of accumulation with knowledge as well as with technology. Nobody needs to reinvent things once they're done being invented. So there's your answer. It's invented or discovered already so nobody else needs to provide it. But, here's the fly in the ointment. Capitalism regards everything as being an expendable asset even accumulated knowledge so patents on useful knowledge and technology that could be open to everybody in which to use and further build upon is restricted causing what used to be naturally abundant intellectual resources to be artificially made scarce because in a debt system greater scarcity equals greater value. Profit efficiency is an obsolete criteria of an obsolete system.
Edison invented the lightbulb. Somebody needs to produce lightbulbs for the general population..

Profit efficiency is obsolete? Socialists USED to support profits, but insist the profits should go to the worker and not the capitalist.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 02:13 AM

And like I said, communism requires advanced productive sources in order to properly function.




Okay. And what exactly are those "advanced productive forces?"

The productive forces of 1900?
The productive forces of 1950?
The productive forces of 2000?
The productive forces of 2050?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

communism has no state, however it does have societies. whats to stop one society from going over to another and taking all their shit and enlaving them?


So what are the consequences of "rape and murder" in a communist society? If there's no state, then there are no laws or consequences. If there are no laws and consequences, then there's nothing to stop those sick bastards.

Or is that the "price of freedom from wage-slavery"?

"No more wage-slavery, but you'll have to live in a lawless society where sick bastards can be free to make your life a living hell."

Communism is the theory for the "losers" of society.

McDonalds' Workers of the World Unite!

[Janus]

no, nothing is ever free, usable goods require work and energy to be spent, this combined with natural scarcity puts a cost on everything
Communism is about a free access system. To each according to need, to each according to ability. People will produce products and gain free access to supplies because they work. This doesn't require a monetary system.


infact it results in more effecient ways of gathering recources thus lessening scarcity. it doesn't matter how advanced the industry is, as long as there is a finite number of things scarcity wil always be an issue.
Tell that to the monopolies.


why not? whats stopping them from doing such things?
There's nothing physically stopping them if that's what you're asking. However, there is no reason to.


they will? even if they are, how does this guarantee any level of objectivity?
They will not be personal friends of said person but as community members, they can work in the best interests of the community itself and make sure that said person has a fair consequence.


its all mostly theory.
You're right but some of it has been put into practice already. We do not profess to know every minute detail rather these things can be worked out by those who know best; that is the people themselves.

[colonelguppy]

Communism is about a free access system. To each according to need, to each according to ability. People will produce products and gain free access to supplies because they work. This doesn't require a monetary system.

yes but obviously what each individual is able to attain depends on the productive capability of his commune, therefore the products harder to make will be harder to attain and therefore not "free". it costs society collectively, and the items that are harder to come about will be more valuable.

nothing is free. just because you personally don't work to make something doesn't mean its free.


Tell that to the monopolies.

monopolies don't deal with competition. why did you bring that up? its completely irrelevent.


There's nothing physically stopping them if that's what you're asking. However, there is no reason to.

sure there is, items that are hard to come by but are sitll high in demand are very compelling to hoard.



The people will always have power
is that a verifiable fact or wishful thinking?


They will not be personal friends of said person but as community members, they can work in the best interests of the community itself and make sure that said person has a fair consequence.

they can but will they? with no rule of law in place, how likely is this?


You're right but some of it has been put into practice already. We do not profess to know every minute detail rather these things can be worked out by those who know best; that is the people themselves.

i already know what happens when you put humans into situations to just "work it out".

[Avtomatov]

yes but obviously what each individual is able to attain depends on the productive capability of his commune, therefore the products harder to make will be harder to attain and therefore not "free". it costs society collectively, and the items that are harder to come about will be more valuable.

nothing is free. just because you personally don't work to make something doesn't mean its free.

Here, and in every other place you post, your entire argument is based on semantics.

[Janus]

therefore the products harder to make will be harder to attain and therefore not "free". it costs society collectively, and the items that are harder to come about will be more valuable.
These would be the things that are more or less used sparingly. If there is a deficit, then rationing obviously needs to take place.


why did you bring that up? its completely irrelevent
You discussed how competition was so healthy when the tendency for capitalism is to amass capital and stop competition.


sure there is, items that are hard to come by but are sitll high in demand are very compelling to hoard.
You could just get it yourself. No one can hold you hostage for some object because it is a moneyless economy.


is that a verifiable fact or wishful thinking?
In communism, it would be a fact.


with no rule of law in place, how likely is this?
Sorry but communism does not mean no laws like the society which your anarcho-capitalist buddies here envision.


i already know what happens when you put humans into situations to just "work it out".
Why can't they figure out what is best for themselves? Why do they need some elite, management telling them what to do?

[colonelguppy]

These would be the things that are more or less used sparingly. If there is a deficit, then rationing obviously needs to take place.

in which case hoarding or theft becomes viable.


You discussed how competition was so healthy when the tendency for capitalism is to amass capital and stop competition.

no its not. monopolies are created by artificially high barriers of entry to the market caused by government protectionism.


You could just get it yourself. No one can hold you hostage for some object because it is a moneyless economy.

no you can't get it yourself because theres low supply. thats the problem. others who hoard or steal will be able to exploit this. moneyless doesn't mean valueless.



In communism, it would be a fact.

gotta say you don't make a very convincing case


Sorry but communism does not mean no laws like the society which your anarcho-capitalist buddies here envision.

so then its not stateless.


Why can't they figure out what is best for themselves? Why do they need some elite, management telling them what to do?

no i don't want anyone telling anyone what to do, i want individuals in charge of themselves and no one else.

[Janus]

in which case hoarding or theft becomes viable.
Like I said, someone can't hold you hostage for an item when you can just get it later. Besides, I don't think your neighbors would be too happy with you after they learned you had 5 refrigerators for your private use.


monopolies are created by artificially high barriers of entry to the market caused by government protectionism.
Monopolies resulted and result when there is little government intervention.


moneyless doesn't mean valueless.
The value is determined by practical use and the amount of labor put into it. In the beginning, a revolutionary society would probably have to have LTV's rather than jump immediately into a free access economy. However, once productive forces have advanced enough and the state is done away with, then that transition can occur. Things may indeed be more useful, but it's not like only a very limited amount of people could get access to it once the need for some form of rationing is gone.


gotta say you don't make a very convincing case
Once the people no longer hold power, then it is not communism.


so then its not stateless.
No, laws or rules do not require a state to enforce.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

No, laws or rules do not require a state to enforce.


Well, it requires some type of organized municipal public authority...does it not?

[colonelguppy]

Like I said, someone can't hold you hostage for an item when you can just get it later. Besides, I don't think your neighbors would be too happy with you after they learned you had 5 refrigerators for your private use.

no but you cna't get it later, thats the issue, thats what makes the item more valuable.

and so what if they're unhappy, what are they going to do beat you up and take your shit? only if they have the ability i suppose.


Monopolies resulted and result when there is little government intervention.

no they didn't, there's never been a time in our history without government protectionism. you could back up some of your posts with deductive reasoning or something.


Things may indeed be more useful, but it's not like only a very limited amount of people could get access to it once the need for some form of rationing is gone.

no thats the thing, there will never be an infinite amount of anything, so rationing must occur. because different amount of goods will only be available in different finite amounts with different practical uses, there values will be different and many things will be difficult to come by.


Once the people no longer hold power, then it is not communism.

its really just semantics at this point, but thats would be irrelevant because the situation arrived from communism, which illustrates the instability of such a system.


No, laws or rules do not require a state to enforce.

they require monoplized coercive force which requires a state

[Janus]

You still haven't stated why and for what purpose people would need to stock up on certain valuable items especially if they can't make a profit from it.


Well, it requires some type of organized municipal public authority...does it not?
Yes, the people.


no they didn't, there's never been a time in our history without government protectionism. you could back up some of your posts with deductive reasoning or something.
Government protectionism in the form of tariffs then yes. But besides that, the government was pretty laissez faire back in the late 19th century heyday of the monopolies.


and so what if they're unhappy, what are they going to do beat you up and take your shit? only if they have the ability i suppose.
No, I don't think physical violence should be encouraged but dtrong disapproval from your neighbors is most likely going to be enough to get you to stop.


they require monoplized coercive force which requires a state
It would depend on one's definition of state.

[colonelguppy]

You still haven't stated why and for what purpose people would need to stock up on certain valuable items especially if they can't make a profit from it.

well obviously there would be no point to doing so if they can't make a profit, my point is that there are many instances where they could make profit, namely in instances of goods which are more scarce.


Government protectionism in the form of tariffs then yes. But besides that, the government was pretty laissez faire back in the late 19th century heyday of the monopolies.

not really, take the railway companies for example. government (who had the exclusive right to take land via eminent domain) protected their right to exclusive use of the rail, often times for kickback, this era was full of state and federal level corruption.

however, it should also be noted that as quickly as many of the monoplies came, they left, due impart to lower barriers to entry in the market. anti-trust acts were largely inneffective in doing anyhthing about monopolies, but eventually market forces prevailed.


No, I don't think physical violence should be encouraged but dtrong disapproval from your neighbors is most likely going to be enough to get you to stop.

what? no one stops committing crime because their neighbors disaprove of them, most people disaprove of drug trafficing and yet drug dealers continue to sell.


It would depend on one's definition of state.

i suppose it would, but lets not debate semantics. so yes communities would have employed coercive force?

[Janus]

my point is that there are many instances where they could make profit, namely in instances of goods which are more scarce.
Where does that profit come from? The nonexistent money?


this era was full of state and federal level corruption.
Because of the monopolies' influence in government and the whole political machine system.


but eventually market forces prevailed.
No, the federal government started to become more involved and bust the trusts.


most people disaprove of drug trafficing and yet drug dealers continue to sell.
There is a difference between simple disapproval and actual action. There have been successes in neighborhoods that have actively seeked to get rid of drug dealers.


so yes communities would have employed coercive force?
All societies influences people's decisions no matter what whether indirectly or directly.

[colonelguppy]

Where does that profit come from? The nonexistent money?

you don't need currency to make a profit. lets say you trade your computer for a barrel of crude. suddenly the crude oil becomes much more valuable because more and more poeple are using it and it is therefore harder to get, and suddenly people are willing to trade you more than one computer for that barrel of crude or maybe a better computer, ie, net gain or profit. they could also just steal something and trade it for something more useful to them.


Because of the monopolies' influence in government and the whole political machine system.

yeah thats part of it. i never claimed that people wouldn't try and cheat the system though.


There is a difference between simple disapproval and actual action. There have been successes in neighborhoods that have actively seeked to get rid of drug dealers.

yeah but they have to use force to do it


All societies influences people's decisions no matter what whether indirectly or directly.

yeah but the only guaranteed way to get anyhting done is applying direct force.

[Janus]

you don't need currency to make a profit. lets say you trade your computer for a barrel of crude. suddenly the crude oil becomes much more valuable because more and more poeple are using it and it is therefore harder to get, and suddenly people are willing to trade you more than one computer for that barrel of crude or maybe a better computer, ie, net gain or profit. they could also just steal something and trade it for something more useful to them.
In communism, there is no trade.


yeah but they have to use force to do it
No, when anti-drug crusaders made it known that drug dealing wouldn't be accepted in their communities, the dealers were generally gone. For example, they started off by targeting the youth and going out and making sure they weren't engaging in illicit activities.


yeah but the only guaranteed way to get anyhting done is applying direct force.
That's how states justify their actions.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The entire premise of this post is based on the poorly reasoned notion that all "capitalist" systems are the same.

Sweden and China are both "capitalist", but individual rights in one is far different than the other.

France v. Cuba

The United States v. Iran

former Imperial Spain (circa 1955) v. former Albainia SSR (circa 1955)


The notion tht the whole world is one big conspiracy to prevent organized thought leading to socialism causes one to make faulty arguments.


A. Hamilton

[colonelguppy]

In communism, there is no trade.

i don't see how you can realisticly expect that to be the case.


No, when anti-drug crusaders made it known that drug dealing wouldn't be accepted in their communities, the dealers were generally gone. For example, they started off by targeting the youth and going out and making sure they weren't engaging in illicit activities.

and they left on the accord that kids were no longer doing drugs? (which has never really been true anyways, kids still do drugs just as much as ever) Legal force obviously had a much larger role in opposing drug dealers, and even so its still a problem, because many people will do whats profitable to them regardless of what others think.


That's how states justify their actions.

i know. i'm not opposed to states.

[Janus]

i don't see how you can realisticly expect that to be the case.
Trade implies exchange. There is no trade in the sense that one thinks of it now.


and they left on the accord that kids were no longer doing drugs? (which has never really been true anyways, kids still do drugs just as much as ever)
In certain areas,yes. There was no profit made and locals were increasingly resentful of them.

[colonelguppy]

Trade implies exchange. There is no trade in the sense that one thinks of it now.

so some people won't each want different combinations of different things?


In certain areas,yes. There was no profit made and locals were increasingly resentful of them.

ok if theres no profit to be made than sure that owuld be the case, but its hard to prevent such circumstances.

[Janus]

so some people won't each want different combinations of different things?
No, trade implies exchange; when there is a disparity of capital between two trading areas that creates inequality. Thus communism is about free and open distribution and trade will become unnecessary.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Much of this question regarding "individual rights" in communism versus capitalism is based upon one's concept of individual rights, and which rights one cherishes.


If you believe the rights of all people are to have SOME kind of work, SOME kind of shelter, and SOME kind of food on the table, communsim is the way to go. Your food will always be crummy, as will your home, as will your work (for 95% of the people). This is because all things will be collectivized, and distributed by a corrupt bunch of murderers. BUT YOU WILL EAT BETTER THAN THE HOMELESS IN LOS ANGELES. (Probably.) BUT YOU WON'T EAT AS WELL AS 90% OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.

For those commies offended by this, you shouldn't be. Only the very naive believe the revolution will be controlled by caring individuals who won't keep the best for their families and friends.


If you believe the rights of all people are to be left alone, to achieve for oneself what one needs, to be given a more or less equal chance to use your talents to create your own means to food, clothing, shelter, and have the rights of freedoms of speech, faith, political challenge, then capitalism is for you. THERE WILL BE LOSERS. THESE WILL BE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO REAL FOOD, CLOTHING, OR SHELTER. THESE PEOPLE WILL NOT EAT AS WELL AS THE AVERAGE PERSON IN THE COMMIE COUNTRY.

Cappies will not, generally, be offended by this, as they know this is so and accept it as part of the game.


A. Hamilton

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 10:19 PM

so some people won't each want different combinations of different things?
No, trade implies exchange; when there is a disparity of capital between two trading areas that creates inequality. Thus communism is about free and open distribution and trade will become unnecessary.
we've been over this, nothing is "free". communities can only produce so much, so everyone will have to be rationed on everything to prevent unequal distribution. some people might not be satisfied with the rationed level of goods, so they'll trade/steal for more.

[Janus]

If you believe the rights of all people are to have SOME kind of work, SOME kind of shelter, and SOME kind of food on the table, communsim is the way to go. Your food will always be crummy, as will your home, as will your work (for 95% of the people). This is because all things will be collectivized, and distributed by a corrupt bunch of murderers. BUT YOU WILL EAT BETTER THAN THE HOMELESS IN LOS ANGELES. (Probably.) BUT YOU WON'T EAT AS WELL AS 90% OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.

For those commies offended by this, you shouldn't be. Only the very naive believe the revolution will be controlled by caring individuals who won't keep the best for their families and friends.
What are you basing all this off of? Previous revolutions? Because what happened in the USSR and the PRC was not communism.


nothing is "free".
Yes, it's not free in the sense that it comes from the labor of someone else.


communities can only produce so much, so everyone will have to be rationed on everything to prevent unequal distribution. some people might not be satisfied with the rationed level of goods, so they'll trade/steal for more.
We've been over this too. Communism requires advanced productive forces and socialized distribution so that people can get what they want. Obviously, communities can't produce everything which is why they need to acquire supplies from another community but it's technically not trading because there is no exchange involved. Trade, in the ways which you think of it, will become a thing of the past.

[colonelguppy]

technology only lessens the effects of scarcity, it can't out right eliminate it, so no matter what level you produce at there will have to be rationing to prevent unequal distribution. as different people have different needs and wants there will have to be trade (or theft i suppose) to make up for these desires.

what makes you think communities will just give up their recources to another?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Janus:

I'm only basing what I wrote on the following opinion I have, which I stated (and you quoted):


For those commies offended by this, you shouldn't be. Only the very naive believe the revolution will be controlled by caring individuals who won't keep the best for their families and friends.


I'm surprised a commie would take issue with what I wrote in the abstract. I said under post Revolutionary times, everyone would have SOME kind of home, unlike capitalism. I also said they'd eat better than the homeless of Los Angeles. I presume ALL commies would agree with this. I mean, why wouldn't they have it better? Food and housing distribution, as much of a mess as it would be would organize in some way to provide for the homeless, yes?

A. Hamilton

P.S. And, no, I did not base in on the State Socialism that was thug capitalism in the USSR, China, or other "Marxist" places. I am sophisticated enough to know they weren't really communist. A.H.

[Janus]

it can't out right eliminate it, so no matter what level you produce at there will have to be rationing to prevent unequal distribution
There may still be scarcity but I doubt it will apply for the most needed goods.


as different people have different needs and wants there will have to be trade (or theft i suppose) to make up for these desires.
I still don't understand the means with which people would trade in this little black market of yours?


what makes you think communities will just give up their recources to another?
They don't just give them up. If the resource was scarce then that may be a different issue.


Only the very naive believe the revolution will be controlled by caring individuals who won't keep the best for their families and friends.
The people are in control of the revolution.


And, no, I did not base in on the State Socialism that was thug capitalism in the USSR, China, or other "Marxist" places. I am sophisticated enough to know they weren't really communist. A.H.
But you assume that an elite will take over just like it did in those countries? :blink:

[Alexander Hamilton]

My Original Comment:
Only the very naive believe the revolution will be controlled by caring individuals who won't keep the best for their families and friends.

Janus Responds:
The people are in control of the revolution.

My Response:
Sure they are.


My Original Comment:
And, no, I did not base in on the State Socialism that was thug capitalism in the USSR, China, or other "Marxist" places. I am sophisticated enough to know they weren't really communist. A.H.

Janus Responds:
But you assume that an elite will take over just like it did in those countries?

My Response:
I don't assume it. I know that would happen as sure as sunshine.

[Janus]

And once again, I ask what you base these unfounded assumptions on?

[colonelguppy]

it can't out right eliminate it, so no matter what level you produce at there will have to be rationing to prevent unequal distribution
There may still be scarcity but I doubt it will apply for the most needed goods.

scarcity applies to all objects, its not some market condition its a physical fact about our universe.


I still don't understand the means with which people would trade in this little black market of yours?

lets say persons A and B both have the same amount of hats and socks. they can't get anymore because the rationed level has already been acquired. person A decides he would rather have a more types of hats and less socks sense he likes walking around barefoot anyways, and person B doesn't like hiding his naturally good looking hair but often time gets cold feet and would like more socks. person A approaches person B at any given time with a bunch of socks and asks if person B would like to trade his unused hats for the socks. the trade makes sense to both parties so they do it. however, person B wants the socks more than person A wants the hats so he is willing to trade more hats for the socks, and does so.

you know, pretty much how it goes down now.


They don't just give them up. If the resource was scarce then that may be a different issue.

all recources are scarce and have value and thus relinquishing them requires some kind of motivaiton.

[Janus]

scarcity applies to all objects, its not some market condition its a physical fact about our universe.
Scarcity implies that there aren't enough. If there aren't enough of the most essential goods then no society could function properly at all. Communism certainly can't work in these conditions.


lets say persons A and B both have the same amount of hats and socks. they can't get anymore because the rationed level has already been acquired. person A decides he would rather have a more types of hats and less socks sense he likes walking around barefoot anyways, and person B doesn't like hiding his naturally good looking hair but often time gets cold feet and would like more socks. person A approaches person B at any given time with a bunch of socks and asks if person B would like to trade his unused hats for the socks. the trade makes sense to both parties so they do it. however, person B wants the socks more than person A wants the hats so he is willing to trade more hats for the socks, and does so.

you know, pretty much how it goes down now.
This is why rationing needs to be done with as quickly as possible. Furthermore, this would describe a possible situation in socialism rather than communism.


all recources are scarce and have value and thus relinquishing them requires some kind of motivaiton.
Because the productive forces are socialized. Thus no certain area can simply hog all its resources to itself.

[colonelguppy]

Scarcity implies that there aren't enough. If there aren't enough of the most essential goods then no society could function properly at all. Communism certainly can't work in these conditions.


no scarcity, in an economics constext, means that their isn't an adequate number of something to fill infinite and subjective wants.


This is why rationing needs to be done with as quickly as possible. Furthermore, this would describe a possible situation in socialism rather than communism.

no rationing will always be a necessity in both ocmmunism and socialism.


Because the productive forces are socialized. Thus no certain area can simply hog all its resources to itself.

wait so there is some kind of world wide entity assuring equal distribution of recources between areas?

[Janus]

no rationing will always be a necessity in both ocmmunism and socialism.
What do you base this off of?


wait so there is some kind of world wide entity assuring equal distribution of recources between areas?
Unequal distribution is gone; this includes trade (at least in the context with which you are thinking of it).

Furthermore, you are assuming that some type of communal divides exist. The fact is that a community needs to acquire some sort of product from another region thus it can't simply hog everything to itself.

Look, this discussion is going nowhere because you are thinking about a future society in terms of the limits present today and also basing it off historic failures which never remotely reached communism. It's comparable to someone in the Feudal age imagining advanced capitalism in feudal terms.

[colonelguppy]

What do you base this off of?

because recources are finite so you have to limit the number given to each person inorder to make sure everyone gets some


Unequal distribution is gone; this includes trade (at least in the context with which you are thinking of it).

unequal distribution is largely a result of geography, communism won't fix this.


Furthermore, you are assuming that some type of communal divides exist. The fact is that a community needs to acquire some sort of product from another region thus it can't simply hog everything to itself.

so yeah they will have to trade to get the recources each community needs.


Look, this discussion is going nowhere because you are thinking about a future society in terms of the limits present today and also basing it off historic failures which never remotely reached communism. It's comparable to someone in the Feudal age imagining advanced capitalism in feudal terms.

its going no where because you keep bringing up the same points over and over even though we've covered them. i haven't cited one modern day or past communist society, i've purely asked rhetorical questions based in real life issues and we have each responded from there.

[Janus]

because recources are finite so you have to limit the number given to each person inorder to make sure everyone gets some
Raw resources are finite but like I said communism depends on the advancement of productive forces. Stop bringing up the same arguements.


unequal distribution is largely a result of geography, communism won't fix this.
Not really. Some countries aren't getting what they need due to a low amount of capital. There is even unequal distribution going on in some of the most advanced countries. Furthermore, the actual technical details of distribution over great distances can be solved.


so yeah they will have to trade to get the recources each community needs.
There is exchange which will be looked after by various councils,etc. of the different regions. However, it's not technically trade as that would only result in unfair exchange particularly between unequal regions.


its going no where because you keep bringing up the same points over and over even though we've covered them.
I keep bringing them up because you are producing the same arguements over and over. You keep thinking of everything in terms of today and that simply gets us nowhere.

[colonelguppy]

Raw resources are finite but like I said communism depends on the advancement of productive forces. Stop bringing up the same arguements.

and goddammit i keep saying that no matter how advanced productive forces are you can't produce infinite recources, its physically impossible.


Not really. Some countries aren't getting what they need due to a low amount of capital.

yeah, caused (in part) by unequal amounts of natural recources caused by geography.


There is even unequal distribution going on in some of the most advanced countries.

i thought we were talking about distribution between countries not distribution between people in countries.


There is exchange which will be looked after by various councils,etc. of the different regions.

various councils? you've gotta be shitting me.


However, it's not technically trade as that would only result in unfair exchange particularly between unequal regions.

no trade is the simple exchange of goods between parties any sense of unfairness is purely a subjective observation on the part of a third party.


I keep bringing them up because you are producing the same arguements over and over. You keep thinking of everything in terms of today and that simply gets us nowhere.

no im thinking in terms of reality and common sense. you can't just create a false reality and claim that it will work because the world will be different.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 11:19 PM

Look, this discussion is going nowhere because you are thinking about a future society in terms of the limits present today and also basing it off historic failures which never remotely reached communism. It's comparable to someone in the Feudal age imagining advanced capitalism in feudal terms.

Communism is not magcal. It has to deal with, and resolve, the same sorts of economic issues which capitalism has to deal with.

Scarcity is an issue which communist communities have to deal with. There can only be so much grain grown per year, only so many automobiles produces ect. Heck, there are only so many people alive able to work, and only so much time during a day to work. The communist community is going to have to figure out how to balance it all out. This is true even in an environment of improving "productive forces." These are limits which will exist in a communist community as well.