about communism (discussion) [Archive]

Assaultrifle

27th May 2008, 05:16

what is so great about communism? i wouldve posted this in some other debate section but being anti communist i had to post it here. first off i will say that i dislike communism so if some admin wants to ban me for that then finje. but i am only here to share my beliefs and see why you people think that communism is good and debate about it. (and youll probly be pleased to know that i hate nazis.)

anyway before you all start flaming me and calling me a nazi and saying how good for the equality and good of the people communism is, let me tell you about the conditions of my country, Romania, during communist times. this country was communist from after WW2 until 1989.

the only rich people were the dictator and his family and people close to him that he liked. people had no rights, and were kept in the dark with tons of propaganda and misinformation. they had to worship the dictator like a god and days like the dictator's birthday, wedding anniversary, etc. were national holidays. military service was mandatory even for women. and even though communism is about the people prospering, somehow much of the nation ended up living in poverty. protesting of any kind was illegal, and there were always secret police dressed as civilians ready to arrest your family if any members of it protest the govt in any way. when the people decided to peacefully peaceful protest the govt. and marched out into the street with signs, the president ordered soldiers to shoot into the crowd with machine guns. 43 innocent people ended up dead. eventually even the military which was super loyal to the president decided he was evil and it could not go on any longer, and they turned on him. then the nation became a democracy. and this is all true my parents and grandparents plus other Romanians ive met told me about it. in other words they are firsthand accounts.

now, i realize some of you may think that just because that one nation had a bad experience with communism doesn't mean the US or other nations will. Well think about it: the communist governments of many nations, including the soviet union itself, fell because of rebellions by the people. few nations remain communist now.

that is communism in practice. now let's talk about communism in theory. in communism the government owns the businesses correct? if so, then people cannot really make money off of starting their own businesses. wouldn't you rather be able to do that? wouldn't you rather be able to dream big, and dream that one day you will become rich and be happy? in capitalism people can do that, and that is the beauty of America. and just because people become rich doesnt mean they have to be greedy. you can become rich and then give to the poor! so you can be charitible and happy at the same time. do you really want to redistribute the wealth in the United States and take money away from people who have worked for it their whole lives? let me add that i myself am poor and yet i still don't support communism.

there are opportunities for the poor in capitalism (America.) in America there are benefits that you can apply for if you are unemployed or dont make enough to feed yourself. so in america you can get aid in money even if you don't work or just don't make enough. so wheres the need for communism?also you could just go to some charity place like the salvation army for aid or join the military and get free housing and food on base.

so please share your opinion.

Awful Reality

27th May 2008, 05:27

anyway before you all start flaming me and calling me a nazi and saying how good for the equality and good of the people communism is, let me tell you about the conditions of my country, Romania, during communist times. this country was communist from after WW2 until 1989.

Ceausescu, I'm going to assume, is not well liked around here, yes (and by here I mean RevLeft)?

the only rich people were the dictator and his family and people close to him that he liked. people had no rights, and were kept in the dark with tons of propaganda and misinformation. they had to worship the dictator like a god and days like the dictator's birthday, wedding anniversary, etc. were national holidays. military service was mandatory even for women. and even though communism is about the people prospering, somehow much of the nation ended up living in poverty. protesting of any kind was illegal, and there were always secret police dressed as civilians ready to arrest your family if any members of it protest the govt in any way. when the people decided to peacefully peaceful protest the govt. and marched out into the street with signs, the president ordered soldiers to shoot into the crowd with machine guns. 43 innocent people ended up dead. eventually even the military which was super loyal to the president decided he was evil and it could not go on any longer, and they turned on him. then the nation became a democracy. and this is all true my parents and grandparents plus other Romanians ive met told me about it. in other words they are firsthand accounts. This is unfortunate and unacceptable. However, these actions occur far more often in capitalist regimes and to lay them all at the feet not of a leader or government but instead at those of an ideology seems a bit rash, does it not? And I'm going to ignore the little ad hominem at the end.

realize some of you may think that just because that one nation had a bad experience with communism doesn't mean the US or other nations will. Well think about it: the communist governments of many nations, including the soviet union itself, fell because of rebellions by the people. few nations remain communist now. This can be attributed to many things, the least of which is probably "communism," the most of which have to do with revisionism.

That is communism in practice. now let's talk about communism in theory. in communism the government owns the businesses correct? Either you're lying to support this ad hominem or Ceausescu provided shit education, because this is totally wrong. In communism there is no state, or business.

then people cannot really make money off of starting their own businesses. wouldn't you rather be able to do that? wouldn't you rather be able to dream big, and dream that one day you will become rich and be happy? I love to dream, I do it most nights. And strangely enough, none of my dreams have ever come true. Quit being an idealist and kidding yourself. There's no magical dreamland where whatever you wishfor comes handed to you on a bankcheck and a silver platter.

capitalism people can do that, and that is the beauty of America. and just because people become rich doesnt mean they have to be greedy. you can become rich and then give to the poor! so you can be charitible and happy at the same time. do you really want to redistribute the wealth in the United States and take money away from people who have worked for it their whole lives? let me add that i myself am poor and yet i still don't support communism.
More Ignorance and ad hominems, I'm going to assume he's a troll.

there are opportunities for the poor in capitalism (America.) in America there are benefits that you can apply for if you are unemployed or dont make enough to feed yourself. so in america you can get aid in money even if you don't work or just don't make enough. so wheres the need for communism?also you could just go to some charity place like the salvation army for aid or join the military and get free housing and food on base.

so please share your opinion.
Let's break this down logically. You have opportunities. To many poor living in substandard urban conditions, these opportunities involve crime. You could also join the army, which a huge amount of the aforementioned populace do, and spend your life playing XBox with your squad or getting your leg blown off, viz. Iraq. Or you can get a welfare check and buy a coat, blanket, and soda. Wonderful. If it's so fucking easy, why doesn't everyone do it?

Bright Banana Beard

27th May 2008, 05:29

You got a lot to learn, comrade. But I will leave to someone else to reply to your question since we all under state-controlled media. :)

BobKKKindle$

27th May 2008, 05:39

Welcome to the forum.

No Socialist proposes the political/economic system which existed in Romania as a viable model - Socialists support the freedom of the individual in all spheres of life, and so any government which prevents open discussion of political affairs, or denies women the right to exercise control over their own bodies, cannot be described as Socialist.

Socialists oppose capitalism as a system based on exploitation and an unequal division of wealth. The tools and machinery which are used to produce goods are owned by a small group, and this private ownership enables the members of this group to take control of the goods which are produced by workers, even if they have not done anything to deserve the wealth which is generated from the sale of these goods. The people who do not own any material assets have no choice but to sell their ability to work as a commodity to a member of the owning class, because if they refuse to work, they will have no other means by which they can attain the income they need to survive, and so will eventually starve to death. The wage offered in exchange for this work is generally subject to the control of a member of the owning class, because if a proletarian demands a higher wage or an improvement in working conditions, the owner will simply choose to hire someone else who is desperate for a job and will be willing to tolerate a lower rate of pay. This downwards pressure on wages has intensified, as it is now possible for the owner to transfer production to the developing world where labor regulations do not exist or are not enforced by the government. The market for labour is thus based on an unequal distribution of power between owner and the worker.

The idea that anyone can become rich under the capitalist system is simply wrong - in many capitalist societies there is a high level of social immobility (which means that it is difficult to move between classes during the course of one's life) and many of the people who comprise the owner class gained ownership through inheritance - not because they did any hard work, or made better decisions than other people.

This system of ownership relations forms the basis of material inequality under capitalism. We live in a world in which there are sufficient resources to ensure that everyone has a basic standard of welfare - and yet there are still people who do not have anywhere to live, or do not have enough money to purchase nutritious food. Socialists propose the socialization of society's economic resources so the wealth which is currently controlled by the owning class can be distributed according to need - which will enable the elimination of the social problems which arise from the capitalist system.

More Ignorance and ad hominems, I'm going to assume he's a troll.

Show some respect - after hearing what living in a Stalinist state was like, it's not surprising that someone would be opposed to Socialism. You won't change people's ideas by accusing them of being trolls.

gla22

27th May 2008, 05:39

you are like most people who have had anti communist propaganda drilled into you until communism=totalitarianism. We'll fix that. Communism is where there is no state or government, and the workers own the means of production.

Assaultrifle

27th May 2008, 05:55

"Ceausescu, I'm going to assume, is not well liked around here, yes (and by here I mean RevLeft)?"

yes i am talking about ceausescu and thats good cuz i dont like him either.

"This is unfortunate and unacceptable. However, these actions occur far more often in capitalist regimes and to lay them all at the feet not of a leader or government but instead at those of an ideology seems a bit rash, does it not? And I'm going to ignore the little ad hominem at the end."

capitalist nations do murder a lot of people, but my point is that this one happened because of a peaceful protest. and yes it was the dictator's fault, not the ideology's fault. but my point is that in practice dictators like ceausescu will rise to power and take advantage of the nation. and i forgot to mention i was born in 1991, 2 years after these things had taken place. that's why i said i got the info from the accounts of my relatives who did live through it.

"This can be attributed to many things, the least of which is probably "communism," the most of which have to do with revisionism."

ill admit i dont really know much about the fall of the soviet union

"Either you're lying to support this ad hominem or Ceausescu provided shit education, because this is totally wrong. In communism there is no state, or business."

well what i mean by business is like a factory, or a company, or a store. those are owned by the "community" not by individuals.

"I love to dream, I do it most nights. And strangely enough, none of my dreams have ever come true. Quit being an idealist and kidding yourself. There's no magical dreamland where whatever you wishfor comes handed to you on a bankcheck and a silver platter."

maybe not everyhting, but if you want a certain career you can get it in capitalism and the best thing is if you want to start AND OWN a business you can do it.

"More Ignorance and ad hominems, I'm going to assume he's a troll."

trust me if i was a troll i wouldnt have spent over 10 minutes typing that first post up.

"Let's break this down logically. You have opportunities. To many poor living in substandard urban conditions, these opportunities involve crime. You could also join the army, which a huge amount of the aforementioned populace do, and spend your life playing XBox with your squad or getting your leg blown off, viz. Iraq. Or you can get a welfare check and buy a coat, blanket, and soda. Wonderful. If it's so fucking easy, why doesn't everyone do it?"

They don't have to commit crime. i pointed out other opportunities like military. what's wrong with joining the military. the point of joining if your poor or homeless is so you can get paid and have some money with which to buy a house or rent an apartment and "start over." and training, fighting, and having fun during the short given free times are all any soldiers do. what else would you be doing in, say, a communist nation's army? and welfare checks are not enough to improve your life drastically, but they are government aid.

Schrödinger's Cat

27th May 2008, 06:00

Why would we ban you? Unless you're touting Hitler's racial beliefs as a prime example of human ingenuity, OI is meant for heterodox opinions.

do you really want to redistribute the wealth in the United States and take money away from people who have worked for it their whole lives?

Actually, we're looking for wealth distribution to reward people who do precisely that - work. You're confusing capitalism, or earnings through frivolous labor and investments, with entrepreneurship.

that is communism in practice.

Your proceeding comments are capitalism in theory. Social mobility in the United States is a fairy tale. Most people included in the Fortune 500 were born to privileged families. The likelihood of a middle-class person making it to the top 5% (of income earners, not wealth) is less than 2%.

you can get aid in money even if you don't work

That's a myth. The government is actually very rigorous about you pursuing a job.

or join the military and get free housing and food on base.

[...] and drive yourself into homelessness five years later when you come back with mental problems. Wonderful.

also you could just go to some charity place like the salvation army for aid

The SA is a wonderful organization, but it is a minor tint on the grand scale. At best you can go to your local non-profit organization and pick up some small commodities. This doesn't change your living conditions in any drastic way.

what is so great about communism?

Fulfillment of wants, for starters. Self-determination. Classless associations.

BobKKKindle$

27th May 2008, 06:04

Schrödinger's Cat

27th May 2008, 06:07

Ceauşescu was actively backed by the United States due to his departure from Soviet politics. I would say your criticisms pertain to dictatorships and the Cold War, not "communism" and "capitalism."

Schrödinger's Cat

27th May 2008, 06:11

Although the option to start your own business does exist, most new businesses fail because they are unable to withstand the competition posed by large firms which are able to sell the same product at a lower price. Large firms often utilize aggressive pricing strategies to retain a dominant position in a market and discourage new entrants - for example, predatory pricing, which is a strategy whereby a dominant firm will sell goods below the cost of production for a short period of time, so as to deny new firms access to the consumer market, which will eventually force the new firms to exit the market or face the danger of bankruptcy.

Even if these problems did not exist, it would not be logically possible for everyone to become an entrepreneur, as capitalism is dependent on those who engage in the physical production of goods in exchange for a wage - the working class. If everyone owned a small firm, how would firms be able to produce consumer goods? Who would they hire?

Precisely.

Most small business owners are run out of capital within 5 years, wrecked by their ownn attempts to make it.

Those who do survive are usually 1.) stuck in the franchise business for quite awhile, which means you just have a new boss or 2.) work longer for some pay offs. The only examples I can think of where actual competition between local companies still exists is minor contract work. Even family restaurants are going down the tube, so to speak.

Socialists are indifferent to the petit-bourgeoisie.

BobKKKindle$

27th May 2008, 06:17

The only examples I can think of where actual competition between local companies still exists is minor contract work.

Agreed - the idea that competition is an essential feature of capitalism is also a myth. In any market, the number of firms will fall over time, as more successful firms will purchase the assets of, or merge with, other firms, and as the number of firms decreases (or as the concentration ratio rises) the remaining firms will try to prevent the entry of new firms through pricing strategies (as described above) and forming cartels. Capitalism, as it currently exists, is based on the power of monopoly.

Assaultrifle

27th May 2008, 06:20

Bright Banana Beard

27th May 2008, 06:32

well you all bring up good points. many businesses do fail, and it is hard to become rich. however i believe that the hope and possibility of becoming great or rich inspires people to work hard, and to get educated. and that is important.

and let's face it, even though i did not personally live through the communist times in romania, my family did, and they witnesses the terrible tragedies and the lack of freedom and the widespread fear and poverty. and that is enough for me to not want it to happen again, ever, and to make me happy that i live in the U.S. which is a democratic republic. i doubt anyone will ever be able to change my opinion about communism because of this bias. call me closed minded if you want, but this bias is too great i will never shake it.

I could act the same.
My family have to suffer a lot in Honduras, the liberalization damaged the once great vibrant community, now it just some poor village that still use wood as fuel. Such condition made me look into alternative economic and on there, I will always hate the US State and never support it. You, too, can also call me closed-minded if you want. :)

USA is republic, but who fund them? Riches. who controls the media? Riches. You know there is many minor party and not even one of them will show up on CNN or FOX? There, it is not democratic and therefore it is state-controlled media.

BobKKKindle$

27th May 2008, 06:36

Assaultrifle, you have not addressed my first post, in which I gave an explanation of how capitalism is exploitative.

and it is hard to become richBecoming rich is very easy for people who are born into a wealthy family, because they gain wealth through inheritance, without having to do anything to deserve it.

however i believe that the hope and possibility of becoming great or rich inspires people to work hard, and to get educated. and that is important.How can people access education if they are poor and do not have enough money to pay tuition fees? Someone who is born into a rich family will be able to attend a school where there is a high standard of teaching and resources such as computers are available - but a person who is not privileged will have no option but to attend a state school, where the quality of education is generally not as high. This means that "getting educated" is not a viable option for the working class.

make me happy that i live in the U.S. which is a democratic republic. Is the United States really democratic? The electoral choice is limited to two parties, both accept the existing system as legitimate and as the only viable economic system - and both of these parties are heavily dependent on donations from private firms, which forces these parties to account for the interests of these firms when they formulate policy.

In addition, when officials are elected to positions of power, the electorate has no means by which these officials can be held accountable or forced to justify their decisions. Socialism would include a recall mechanism, so that officials can be replaced if they do not fight for the interests of the people who elected them.

A further constraint on democratic participation in a capitalist society is the private ownership of the media system, as this restricts the scope of views to which people are exposed, and so prevents them from questioning the accepted political assumptions of a capitalist society.

Assaultrifle

27th May 2008, 06:45

ok i will reply more tomorrow, im going to bed now.

BobKKKindle$

27th May 2008, 09:19

Preemptive rebuttal!

A further argument in favor of capitalism (or to justify the private appropriation of social production) is the idea of that the entrepreneur deserves reward (even if they do not physically participate in production) because they have engaged in an activity which involves risk and so are entitled to the rewards. However, recent events have shown that if a major enterprise which is of importance to the national economy is facing bankruptcy, the government will not be willing to allow the enterprise to fail, but will intervene to cover the losses (with funds appropriated through taxation) as shown by the recent example of Northern Rock (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/dec/18/northernrock.banking1). Therefore, the argument of "risk" does not correspond to reality.

Even if genuine "risk" did exist, there is no reason why the existence of "risk" justifies private appropriation. If someone robs a bank, they also face risk (they might get caught by the police and sent to prison) but if they succeed they have still committed theft, which is generally seen as an immoral act - and so clearly the fact that investment involves risk (in a theoretical world) does not make the private appropriation of profit inherently acceptable.

Assaultrifle

27th May 2008, 21:19

"Socialists oppose capitalism as a system based on exploitation and an unequal division of wealth. The tools and machinery which are used to produce goods are owned by a small group, and this private ownership enables the members of this group to take control of the goods which are produced by workers, even if they have not done anything to deserve the wealth which is generated from the sale of these goods. The people who do not own any material assets have no choice but to sell their ability to work as a commodity to a member of the owning class, because if they refuse to work, they will have no other means by which they can attain the income they need to survive, and so will eventually starve to death. The wage offered in exchange for this work is generally subject to the control of a member of the owning class, because if a proletarian demands a higher wage or an improvement in working conditions, the owner will simply choose to hire someone else who is desperate for a job and will be willing to tolerate a lower rate of pay. This downwards pressure on wages has intensified, as it is now possible for the owner to transfer production to the developing world where labor regulations do not exist or are not enforced by the government. The market for labour is thus based on an unequal distribution of power between owner and the worker."

yeah but people who START companies, especially successful companies, are usually ingenious and well educated and have a good idea for a company as well as good business skills. it's their company because they started it. they planned everyhting and set up everything. so how do they not deserve ownership of their own company they started from scratch? it is true that workers can get screwed alot of times, but there are laws against this such as the minimum wage law and a law on the max number of hours an employer can make someone work. these laws are in place to make sure employers don't take advantage of their employees.

in a communist nation, if someone like the intelligent business person i described above has an idea for a company and does most of the work in setting it up, he will just get the same amount of money as every worker because the profits are divided among them all. so where's the motivation for anyone to even get educated? theres no need to go to college and get special job skills if i can just work in a factory and earn the same amount of money as my boss. second of all, why should the person who worked hard to establish the company earn the same as some worker that puts wires together? then the intelligent guy with the unique job skills gets completely screwed.

also, if you took money away from rich people's bank accounts in the U.S., and literally redistributed it to all the poor people, that would raise prices of goods so high that everyone would end up relatively poor.

and how would people ever buy anything expensive or luxurious in a communist country? if everyone makes the same amount of money, the dealers of luxury cars would have to sell their cars at the same price as crappier cars or at least drastically lower the price, otherwise no one could buy them in a communist nation, and in that case the dealers of luxury cars and other luxury items would simply not sell them in communist nations.

so to sum it all up, in communism people with special job skills get screwed. people without job skills earn the same as them. therefore there is no motivation to become educated. people would never be able to afford expensive goods because if everyone earns the same no one will have enough to buy anything expensive. i don't see how anyone could be happy living in a communist system.

Awful Reality

28th May 2008, 01:54

yeah but people who START companies, especially successful companies, are usually ingenious and well educated and have a good idea for a company as well as good business skills. it's their company because they started it. they planned everyhting and set up everything. so how do they not deserve ownership of their own company they started from scratch? it is true that workers can get screwed alot of times, but there are laws against this such as the minimum wage law and a law on the max number of hours an employer can make someone work. these laws are in place to make sure employers don't take advantage of their employees.
Not true, most small businesses fail, as was mentioned above, fairly quickly. And if not, they are bought out and become part of a corporation or conglomerate. And in the urban, poor, industrial areas of most 1st world countries, these laws are not followed.

in a communist nation, if someone like the intelligent business person i described above has an idea for a company and does most of the work in setting it up, he will just get the same amount of money as every worker because the profits are divided among them all. so where's the motivation for anyone to even get educated? theres no need to go to college and get special job skills if i can just work in a factory and earn the same amount of money as my boss. second of all, why should the person who worked hard to establish the company earn the same as some worker that puts wires together? then the intelligent guy with the unique job skills gets completely screwed.
We believe that just as important as the idea is the labor and that neither the workers or the visionary would be anywhere without the entire community. Plus I address this below.

also, if you took money away from rich people's bank accounts in the U.S., and literally redistributed it to all the poor people, that would raise prices of goods so high that everyone would end up relatively poor. Actually, prices rise because of inflation, which has to do not with who has the money but how much money there is. And as I say below, inflation does not become a problem. Labor creates a sort of "gold standard" like system, if you will, where the amount of circulating "money" is directly proportionate to the amount of goods.

and how would people ever buy anything expensive or luxurious in a communist country? if everyone makes the same amount of money, the dealers of luxury cars would have to sell their cars at the same price as crappier cars or at least drastically lower the price, otherwise no one could buy them in a communist nation, and in that case the dealers of luxury cars and other luxury items would simply not sell them in communist nations.
The thing that makes some cars expensive is that they, in a sort of way, accrue the labor that is put into making them. It takes more building, engineering, etc to build a limousine with luxury leather seats and such than it does to build a smaller car. This is why they have more value. Now under socialism, there is no money, rather labor-vouchers. That means, those who put X labor into making a car get an X labor voucher. This means that really, skilled workers will rise while unskilled workers may fall (not drastically, welfare areas of the state provide for that). This is the basis for technocracy, and I believe that you address this below.

so to sum it all up, in communism people with special job skills get screwed. people without job skills earn the same as them. therefore there is no motivation to become educated. people would never be able to afford expensive goods because if everyone earns the same no one will have enough to buy anything expensive. i don't see how anyone could be happy living in a communist system.
Sadly, yes, this was the case in the Romania. But really,that's not at all how it's supposed to work. If you take the time to read Marx, you'll find many more logical reasonings and systems for payment than you've described about people getting "screwed." And why do you believe people would have no motivation? That's been thrown around a lot, but what's the reason. And to address the bit at the end, people will be able to afford "expensive goods-" there will be no reason for them to be expensive. You seem to be a bit misled, but sincere, and if you stick around there's a lot you can learn here. :)

Killfacer

28th May 2008, 16:45

Ha: i Was restricted for less than this!

What the hell you on about AwfulReality? A technocracy, this isnt blade runner mate, its real life. Lets all go to the new earth space technocracy and spend our lame space vouchers which are money in everything but name. Cmon, do you know how ridiculous your sounding. Not only is it stupid, its clearly not ethical. Isnt the communist thing "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Its definatly not "from whoever is born more talented gets more stuff because thats the way he was born". What the hell. Hardly an egalitarian society, just one where people who are naturally more able rise above and those who are born less able form a seething underclass who dont have any space vouchers. What the fucks with the vouchers aswell? Are there different denominations of space vouchers? Are your space vouchers pretty much money? Yes. Im glad your restricted, during the revolution your comrades wont have to hear you talk about the space technocracy.

Awful Reality

28th May 2008, 21:23

Robert

28th May 2008, 21:47

Not true, most small businesses fail

You're right. Why do you think it happens?

Bud Struggle

28th May 2008, 22:02

Precisely.

Most small business owners are run out of capital within 5 years, wrecked by their ownn attempts to make it.

Most small businesses are severly under capitalized to function properly--if the owner wants to draw a salary and expenses and pay his bills and all of that. Lot's fail. But lots more succeed. Every little store you see, or ever Econoline van on the highway is a small business. Lots of people succeed. They key is--not to be greedy.

Those who do survive are usually 1.) stuck in the franchise business for quite awhile, which means you just have a new boss or 2.) work longer for some pay offs. The only examples I can think of where actual competition between local companies still exists is minor contract work. Even family restaurants are going down the tube, so to speak. Well franchises suck--I own two, a 7/11 with a gas station and a Days Inn. You can never break out of the box of doing just "OK". Nothing special.

The small businesses that succeed have a real IDEA behind them. Something not done before, or if if done--not done well. As much as these Communists put down "intellectual capital"--it's the thing that makes businesses make piles of money as opposed to just staying one step ahead of the creditor.

Socialists are indifferent to the petit-bourgeoisie.

Thank God I'm haute. :cool:

Kami

28th May 2008, 23:28

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
I prefer "The highest quality of life, to the highest number of people, in the most sustainable way". THAT is technocracy, not your conspiracy theory sci-fi mumbo-jumbo.

Bud Struggle

28th May 2008, 23:35

I prefer "The highest quality of life, to the highest number of people, in the most sustainable way". THAT is technocracy, not your conspiracy theory sci-fi mumbo-jumbo.

EXACTLY. Now that's redefining Communism for the 21st Century.

Killfacer

29th May 2008, 11:54

no awful reality i am not under that impression; i know what a technocracy is (at least i think i do), its where the most skilled and able are in charge. So its a meritocracy basically. I was simply laughing at how you sounded. Because you sounded like you where reading from a crap script you wrote that you were gonna send to George Lucas.

Jazzratt

29th May 2008, 14:19

no awful reality i am not under that impression; i know what a technocracy is (at least i think i do),

Unfourtunatley you are wrong.

its where the most skilled and able are in charge. So its a meritocracy basically.

This is a massive simplification, it's true that people skilled in certain areas are given power over those specific areas - civil engineers, for example, having a greater say on bridges than - for example - farmers, but a reverse of that situation as regards crops. However the model used by leftists also posits a lot of involment of communities within the technate and of course a "government" which has no power over people - but over machinery. A greater grasp of technocracy can be from reading the essay I link to in my signature, and other essays on that site, as well as a bit of independent research.

Killfacer

29th May 2008, 14:29

Doesnt sound like i was wrong really. I think techno comes from greek meaning "skill" and cracy means power. Seems like i was right. Just because its a simplification it does not mean it is wrong, just a simplification. Admittedly i may have overdone my disgust for the space technocracy but I was having a pop at what i perceived to be awful reality's assertion that people would be payed in space vouchers for how skilled they were. Im sure most people would agree that this does not seem particuarly fair as some are born more able than others.

Also the hole space vouchers thing was me taking the piss but i assume most people realised that.

Jazzratt

29th May 2008, 14:50

Doesnt sound like i was wrong really. I think techno comes from greek meaning "skill" and cracy means power. Seems like i was right.

That's semantically true but factually false. Anarchist-Communist Technocrats for example propose a rule of no one (or more accurately a rule over no one.) for example.

Just because its a simplification it does not mean it is wrong, just a simplification.

Simplifications often distort the truth until they are far enough from it to be considered incorrect - take, for example, the model of the atom currently taught to 14/15 year olds - it's simplified, close to accurate and entirely wrong.

Admittedly i may have overdone my disgust for the space technocracy but I was having a pop at what i perceived to be awful reality's assertion that people would be payed in space vouchers for how skilled they were. Im sure most people would agree that this does not seem particuarly fair as some are born more able than others.

Either you or awful reality don't understand energy credits (by the way "space vouchers" is a fucking annyoing catchphrase, find a new one - our resident quasi-primitivists have already taken on the "sci-fi" theme when attacking technocracy, be original.). The maximum possible number is handed out to everyone equally. The number of available energy credits (which represent kilowatt-hours) is calculated using this model:

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=30&Itemid=143

and it's all feasible in many of today's nations at today's technology levels.

Also the hole space vouchers thing was me taking the piss but i assume most people realised that.

Next time you take the piss out of something, be sure to understand it first.

Killfacer

29th May 2008, 17:16

damn i thought it was pretty funny the whole space voucher thing but if its been done before then its obviously a bit crap.

So its not like awful reality said and vouchers are not just handed out because of somebodies ability? They are handed out equally?

Jazzratt

29th May 2008, 17:28

So its not like awful reality said and vouchers are not just handed out because of somebodies ability? They are handed out equally?

Pretty much. There is some contention amongst current technocrats on that though, most ACTs (Anarchist Communist Technocrats) think that there should be a flat distribution of energy whereas there are elements (specifically within the Network of European Technocrats) that favour what they call a "semi-flat" distribution model. I've no idea whether this is what awful reality was referring to or whether he was just being ignorant.

Baconator

29th May 2008, 17:42

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=30&Itemid=143

Interesting. Innovative and a sincere attempt for an alternative solution.
I see some problems with this right away though. Thanks for giving me a project to do in my spare time. I'm going to start the Real Technocracy Project (RTP) in an attempt to run a critical examination of the technocracy model and show perhaps some of its inconsistencies.

Since there a handful of people jumping on the technocracy wagon I think its fair enough to do a critical examination of it and see if it stands. :D

Killfacer

29th May 2008, 18:03

I stand corrected, it would seem a technocracy is not as ridiculous as said. Just make sure when your trying to tell people about it that you dont mention the whole european not flat idea, because thats not particuarly socialist.

It does all seem a bit utopian future though...

1. A ruling class of technicians.... uh oh. "The engineers must rule" yeah ok...
2. What do we do in our spare time? Just kick about?
3. big and better nukes, is that really a good use of our newtechnocracy?

Ok the basic economic principle sounds good but its packeged really craply and will frighten people off.

Bud Struggle

29th May 2008, 18:03

I found it pretty interesting, too. On the other hand I really haven't studied it well enough to see the problem with it. Look for ward to what you have to say about it, Deja.

I have to admit this techno-stuff really presents a real rethinking about how we approach living and surviving in this world.

RGacky3

30th May 2008, 04:02

Just about technocracy, it seams to my they suffer from the same thing that early utopian socialists suffered. They try to design specific systems, dealing in concrete social organizing layouts, rather than in principles that are flexible and adaptible, that a system can be naturally built out of. Thats one thing I like about syndicalism and Anarchism, they arn't systems, they are principles that can be applied in a number of ways, they arnt static layouts, Utopian Socialists failed for the most part because they tried to build a society the way a carpenter builds a chair, but you can't do that, because society is infinately more complex, because its made up of free thinking humans.

The small businesses that succeed have a real IDEA behind them. Something not done before, or if if done--not done well. As much as these Communists put down "intellectual capital"--it's the thing that makes businesses make piles of money as opposed to just staying one step ahead of the creditor.

This IDEA, is'nt a idea that helps society, its not an idea that fixes social problems, its a profit idea, whether its hepful or not. Capitalism does'nt reward social solidarity, it fact it punishes it, you have to be cut throat to win in Capitalism, and you need to think of ways to make money if it benefits society or not, that is why you need the government to fund food stamps and cancer research, but not cell phone development and luxury care production.

Jazzratt

30th May 2008, 10:08

1. A ruling class of technicians.... uh oh. "The engineers must rule" yeah ok...

I take it you're quoting from "The Politics of Things"? Because if you are you've uprooted the quote from its context - in much the same way that where Proudhon's Property is Theft mentions that "posession freedom" so this essay-ette by Mr.Hooton talks of ruling not over [I]people but over machines. The idea is much expanded on beyond that of course, but the social sequence ("governance" of people) is pretty much the same as any standard anarchism.

2. What do we do in our spare time? Just kick about?

If you want. You might have a project you'd like to work on, perhaps. Maybe doing something artistic or pursuing a hobby. What do you do with your free time at the moment?

3. big and better nukes, is that really a good use of our newtechnocracy?

Probably not. But a greater understanding of nuclear engineering that could lead to new civil designs could well be.

Killfacer

30th May 2008, 13:37

so the technicians have to work whilst i just have a kick about with some mates, have a bite to eat and read a book? Im sure they will have something to say about that.

I dont think he was talking about nuclear engineering, i think he was talking about bombs. This sounds all well and good but i still think some of the phrasing is stupid and it definatly needs a shiny new, less sci-fi, box.

RGacky3, it was not the government which invented the steam engine was it? No, it wasnt. That invention was invented for commerical reasons and the positive effects its had on society are countless. Your making sweeping generalisations.

Jazzratt

30th May 2008, 14:22

so the technicians have to work whilst i just have a kick about with some mates, have a bite to eat and read a book? Im sure they will have something to say about that.

Uh, you work too. You just work less than you would now because menial jobs would be automated or engineered out of existance.

I dont think he was talking about nuclear engineering, i think he was talking about bombs. This sounds all well and good but i still think some of the phrasing is stupid and it definatly needs a shiny new, less sci-fi, box.

Possibly. Hooton is really just a starting point anyway, "The Politics of Things" was also written decades ago so some of what he said will seem dated/odd.

Killfacer

30th May 2008, 15:40

so what kind of job would i do in this technocracy? becuase it doesnt really explain.

Sky

1st June 2008, 00:04

then the nation became a democracy.

Please reconcile these judgements you describe from Romanians when the majority of the people of Romania feel that they were better off before 1989 than in the present:

During the 10th anniversary of the fall of communism five years ago, much was made of Romania's lack of celebration. Polls showed that four out of five Romanians were unhappy with the way they lived, and 61 percent said they would be better off under Ceausescu.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109971/entry/2109975/

The Counterrevolutionary Coup of 1989 in Romania has only had disastrous consequences for the people of Romania. As late as 2004, the Gross Domestic Product was still below the 1989 level. This means that during 15 years of bourgeois rule there was absolutely no progress. To keep this in perspective, revolutionary Romania reached its pre-WWII economic output in 1948. The bourgeois restoration in Romania has had consequences for the people of Romania comparable to the most deadly war in history.

Awful Reality

4th June 2008, 10:34

Uh, you work too. You just work less than you would now because menial jobs would be automated or engineered out of existance.
Sweet! Do I get to get space-vouchers?

While science fiction shit like that is great, I don't think it deserves a place really in a political and/or economic discussion. Remember that by 2000 robots were to be doing all the work and colonies were supposed to be on Mars. In any case, saying "that's not relevant, technology covers that" is not a viable way to create a society.

Chicano Shamrock

6th June 2008, 12:40

let me tell you about the conditions of my country, Romania, during communist times. this country was communist from after WW2 until 1989.
The first issue here is that you face a common problem that a lot of anti-communists have. What were called "Communist States" were not communist but actually a state that was supposed to lead to a communist society. Communism is a stateless, classless and marketless society. In Marxist theory the way to get to this society is by creating a "workers state" called Socialism that will eventually lose it's power and wither away.

Anarchists and some communists believe that this has been proven not to work. The problems of Romania was not the problem of a communist society. It was not communist. The problem was either the countries fault or the fault of the theory of how to get to a communist society.

in communism the government owns the businesses correct?
False. In a communist society there is no state.

if so, then people cannot really make money off of starting their own businesses. wouldn't you rather be able to do that? wouldn't you rather be able to dream big, and dream that one day you will become rich and be happy?
Being rich can only make you happy if you live in a society where being poor means you could die of hunger. What need is there to start a "business" when everything is already provided in society? What use is there for money when others give you what you need to live?

Wouldn't you rather dream big and hope that one day everyone can be rich unlike capitalism which can not work unless only a small percent of people are rich?

in capitalism people can do that, and that is the beauty of America. and just because people become rich doesnt mean they have to be greedy. you can become rich and then give to the poor! so you can be charitible and happy at the same time.
Well I guess you dream big because this is an imaginary land that you perceive.

do you really want to redistribute the wealth in the United States and take money away from people who have worked for it their whole lives?
Actually the goal of a communist society is to give workers the full value of their work. In a capitalist society the people who have the most money have worked the least. Compare a construction worker to some CEO that goes to a business meeting and some fancy restaurant. The construction worker breaks their back all day while the ceo makes 100x and does no work.

let me add that i myself am poor and yet i still don't support communism.

No you don't know what communism is. Please read the FAQs on this forum about learning what communism and anarchism are.

You don't support that theories process of how to get to communism you don't actually hate communism. There are other theories of how to get to a communistic society that don't require dictators.

also you could just go to some charity place like the salvation army for aid or join the military and get free housing and food on base.
So you mean if you are poor you can join the military and possibly die for a society that keeps you and your family poor? Yay! The numbers are horribly against the poor in a capitalist society. For the society to work there needs to be an abundance of poor workers for factory owners and what not to hire for little money. This way the businessmen can sell the products that the workers made right back to the workers for more money than they were paid to make it. That is called profit and it goes to the businessmen who didn't work at all.

You really have much to learn about how society works. Please go through some of these forums and read the stickies.