Isn't Communism a little.. Purposeless?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Also, if money goes away and everything becomes a mutual exchange, what happens to innovation? For example, how would the plane, electric light, gasoline, the automobile, ect.. have been invented under communism?

This is brought up very often by defenders of capitalism.

Do you think Bell, Curie, Einstein, Newton, Bohr, Pasteur, Galilei, Copernicus got rich with their inventions? They are some of the greatest thinkers that ever lived, but they never got rich for it.

Also, humans don't innovate to get rich, we innovate to make life easier.

[tooAlive]

So why do you have these opinions? How do you think the current socioeconomic arrangement benefits you? What makes you certain you wouldn't be better off in a more egalitarian society?

It benefits me by forcing me to find ways in which to use my abilities to provide products or services that others need or want and be rewarded for doing so.

Would I be better off in an egalitarian society? Perhaps I'd have it easier.

But having it easy doesn't necessarily equate to happiness.

You still need to answer the question of why anyone would do that in the first place. What good is hoarding more apples than one could ever possibly eat, if everyone else can just go down to the nearest collective store and pick up an apple for themselves?

Okay, perhaps not apples as they would go bad.

But people could hoard other things. Silver, gold, logs, bricks, ect.. Why wouldn't they if it would equal more bargaining power?

In a perfect world perhaps humans wouldn't be tempted to do so. But humans are far from being perfect. Which is why in theory, communism is a wonderful concept. In reality? Well..

Exchange would occur, but it would be for the purposes of ensuring that needs and wants are met, not for profits.

Okay, you might live like that. But I sure wouldn't. And what's to stop people like me from acquiring more wealth than what is needed? You say that under communism there's no state; so again, who would prevent me and anyone else like me from accumulating more wealth than we actually need?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

"Innovation and competition are inseperable".

"Workers who cannot work hard for their capitalists (who make surplus profit off their hard earned labour) must starve as they are not beneficial to 'society' (society being the capitalist currently emplying them).

You've got to be trolling. Even after your pitiful fantasies about happy CEOs and the American dream were debunked quite thoroughly and politely by many members on this board, you continue with the same old shit.

Actually, I agree with you on the labour part in a way; most capitalists cause pain and suffering across the globe at the expense of workers with worse 'living standards' who get paid around about 50c a day for working twelve hours. That means that a Saharan worker who labours for a thousand fucking years will not even earn enough to afford your average Australian home (200'000$). From doing this, the capitalist makes millions upon millions of dollars, all the while hardly needing to do a single thing him/herself other than send a letter.

If your logic was applied outside of employed labour alone, Capitalists should starve.

[tooAlive]

"Innovation and competition are inseperable".

"Workers who cannot work hard for their capitalists (who make surplus profit off their hard earned labour) must starve as they are not beneficial to 'society' (society being the capitalist currently emplying them).

You've got to be trolling. Even after your pitiful fantasies about happy CEOs and the American dream were debunked quite thoroughly and politely by many members on this board, you continue with the same old shit.

If your logic was applied outside of employed labour alone, Capitalists should starve.

No, no trolling here.

We just see the world differently, that's all.

Actually, I agree with you on the labour part in a way; most capitalists cause pain and suffering across the globe at the expense of workers with worse 'living standards' who get paid around about 50c a day for working twelve hours. That means that a Saharan worker who labours for a thousand fucking years will not even earn enough to afford your average Australian home (200'000$). From doing this, the capitalist makes millions upon millions of dollars, all the while hardly needing to do a single thing him/herself other than send a letter.

I believe in reincarnation, so while the life of that Saharan may seem like a tragedy to most, it is simply something that person has to go through during this lifetime. And also, while they may be living a pitiful existence in right now, I don't know what the near future may hold for that individual.

Again, it all comes down to what you believe in.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

No, no trolling here.

You quite clearly are. No person would make such provocative thread names such as 'Cummunism is worse than capitalism' and 'Cummunism is 'pointless'' unless they did not actually want to take in

We just see the world differently, that's all.

No, you refuse to acknowledge objective social, political and economic realities. There are no morals to it - Capitalists exploit proletarians daily and the biggest Capitalists are always the ones who get their hands dirty (e.g. 'If I don't shoot those latin American union leaders, someone else will, and they'll achieve dominance over the market for said product!).
I am a proletarian, and I want a better fucking state of living. Maybe if you would dispell this bullshit you are creating about communism, read some of the fundamental concepts by some of the most famous founders instead of taking Mises and Rand for granted, and realise that you too are an exploited proletarian, then you might support it too.

Unless, of course, you are either a child who has no knowledge of the most basic realities of workspace relations, or an actual bourgeois (or both), in which case I would subsequently ask you how much you or your parents make in a year and/or how many rioting workers in the third-world your parents have gotten murdered through the use of quick bribes.

Edit:

I believe in reincarnation, so while the life of that Saharan may seem like a tragedy to most, it is simply something that person has to go through during this lifetime. And also, while they may be living a pitiful existence in right now, I don't know what the near future may hold for that individual.

It's quite clear you're just putting on a show now. Seriously, 'reincarnation'!? I could've done a way better job than you. Why not say that they 'just don't live in democratic countries thus America must liberate them' or some trolly crap like that? At least you'd come across as genuine for that much longer.

I hope you enjoy your ban, troll.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It benefits me by forcing me to find ways in which to use my abilities to provide products or services that others need or want and be rewarded for doing so.

Why do you feel that you need to be "forced" to do anything? What happened to that go-getting entrepreneurial attitude? Are you saying that you need a bunch of tokens to motivate yourself into doing anything? Or is it the access to the things that money buys?

In the latter case, why do you feel you need to be "forced" to jump through a bunch of hoops on someone else's bidding in order to live? Even if your only income is welfare? Don't you think you deserve to live a dignified life as a human being, without being imposed upon by others?

Would I be better off in an egalitarian society? Perhaps I'd have it easier.

But having it easy doesn't necessarily equate to happiness.

Unless you're a multi-millionaire or a billionaire, near enough everyone encounters serious problems in their life which they need help to deal with. If everyone has at the very least an adequate solution to their problems, then with our seven billion people (and counting?) those numbers add up. An egalitarian communist society would have an astonishingly large pool of potential labour to draw on in order to deal with problems.

Okay, perhaps not apples as they would go bad.

But people could hoard other things. Silver, gold, logs, bricks, ect.. Why wouldn't they if it would equal more bargaining power?

Why do you want power over others? Don't you think a society which encourages people to dominate others (in the case of capitalism economically) results in a crappy bucket of crabs-type situation?

In a perfect world perhaps humans wouldn't be tempted to do so. But humans are far from being perfect. Which is why in theory, communism is a wonderful concept. In reality? Well..

Humans would still be capable of great evil in a communist society. Like murder, torture, rape, trying to take away the freedom of others, you know. I never claimed that communism would turn humans into angels.

Okay, you might live like that. But I sure wouldn't. And what's to stop people like me from acquiring more wealth than what is needed? You say that under communism there's no state; so again, who would prevent me and anyone else like me from accumulating more wealth than we actually need?

Erm, everyone else? Remember you're talking about a population that would have thrown out a far bigger and nastier bunch of bastards than small-timers like you and whatever yes-men you can muster up.

Perhaps one day they'll come to America and become just that.

You do realise that billionaires represent a tiny portion of the population, right? As of now, of all people born, most will not be stinking rich. Most people work their asses off for a tiny bunch of idle rich, are tracked and indexed all their lives by a brigade of suits both state and corporate, and usually die as wealthy as they were if they're lucky, poorer if they're not.

Whereas in an egalitarian society, you get the same chances from birth as everyone else. What you do achieve from then really would be from the sweat of your brow and the willing assistance of fellow equals, rather than the wealth of your forefathers.

[#FF0000]

But innovation isn't a "need" or a "want."

No, I strongly disagree. People have innovated for thousands of years before the capitalist mode of production ever came to be. They did it because there is always a want and need to make life easier.

So, yes, innovation is certainly a "want" and "need". And as others have pointed out, your idea of the inventor as a private tinkerer working away in his workshop is sort of unfounded. Advancements in science and technology are very, very often made with public assistance. And there are some great examples of the 'free market' working against innovation and invention as well (see: the war of currents)

[tooAlive]

Why do you feel that you need to be "forced" to do anything? What happened to that go-getting entrepreneurial attitude? Are you saying that you need a bunch of tokens to motivate yourself into doing anything? Or is it the access to the things that money buys?

In the latter case, why do you feel you need to be "forced" to jump through a bunch of hoops on someone else's bidding in order to live? Even if your only income is welfare? Don't you think you deserve to live a dignified life as a human being, without being imposed upon by others?

Difficult situations inspire ingenious solutions.

I'm forced to produce if I want to survive. If I wasn't forced to, I may never accomplish something I previously wasn't aware I was capable of.

So while nobody is "forcing" you to do anything by pointing a gun to your head, you have to if you want to survive.

In my opinion, having all your basic necessities given to you as a birth right creates complacency.

[tooAlive]

Seriously, 'reincarnation'!? I could've done a way better job than you. Why not say that they 'just don't live in democratic countries thus America must liberate them' or some trolly crap like that? At least you'd come across as genuine for that much longer.

I hope you enjoy your ban, troll.

Because that wouldn't be what I believe?

And I don't think America should go around playing "liberators" around the world when we have enough problems here as it is.

And that would be fine; I don't really plan on staying here too long anyways. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I came to understand what your point of view is, and I did.

No, you refuse to acknowledge objective social, political and economic realities. There are no morals to it - Capitalists exploit proletarians daily and the biggest Capitalists are always the ones who get their hands dirty

How is capitalism immoral? It simply allows people to be free, start businesses, hire or become employees, and do with their money what they please. Whether it be hoard it or give it to the poor; they have a choice.

[#FF0000]

choler's name is really, really apt, i notice.

[tooAlive]

choler's name is really, really apt, i notice.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Difficult situations inspire ingenious solutions.

I'd say helping to feed, house, clothe, educate and entertain all seven billion human beings on this planet to an acceptable standard is a pretty challenging thing to achieve.

Are you up to it?

I'm forced to produce if I want to survive. If I wasn't forced to, I may never accomplish something I previously wasn't aware I was capable of.

So you're not curious about new experiences and need someone to deny you access to necessary resources in order to motivate you to do anything? I don't know about you, but myself and plenty of people I've met have always wanted to do things that don't involve chasing profits.

So while nobody is "forcing" you to do anything by pointing a gun to your head, you have to if you want to survive.

No, they're forcing you by denying the necessities of life. Why is that better, or even acceptable?

In my opinion, having all your basic necessities given to you as a birth right creates complacency.

Opinions aren't the same things as facts.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In my opinion, having all your basic necessities given to you as a birth right creates complacency.

Also by this logic, inheritance should be abolished.

[tooAlive]

I'd say helping to feed, house, clothe, educate and entertain all seven billion human beings on this planet to an acceptable standard is a pretty challenging thing to achieve.

Are you up to it?

Yes, that does sound very noble and kind. But I don't think it's my duty to do so.

Throughout my life I've come to understand that not everyone can be helped, and sometimes people need to figure it out on their own.

That doesn't mean I don't help people; by all means. I really enjoy helping others, and thank God I'm able to do so. But there are some things people need to do for themselves.

So you're not curious about new experiences and need someone to deny you access to necessary resources in order to motivate you to do anything? I don't know about you, but myself and plenty of people I've met have always wanted to do things that don't involve chasing profits.

Nobody is denying me anything. I simply have to work for the things I don't have. But I'm not denied anything, nor do I see myself as being entitled to anything.

Although you're right about one thing, I'd like to do other things unrelated to money but don't have the time to do them. That's on me though; as I could easily settle for less and do the "fun" things all day.

Opinions aren't the same things as facts.

Agreed. I'm open to the possibility that either one of us could be wrong. Perhaps even both.

[tooAlive]

Also by this logic, inheritance should be abolished.

You're right, by that same logic it should be.

But I wouldn't advocate for that. For some, the idea of creating something to pass on to their children is the ultimate incentive to succeed.

Why should we take that away from them?

It's not up to me to decide whether or not their children are worthy/deserving anyways.

[Let's Get Free]

How is capitalism immoral? It simply allows people to be free, start businesses, hire or become employees, and do with their money what they please. Whether it be hoard it or give it to the poor; they have a choice.

There is absolutely nothing "free" about capitalism. The worker labors in a factory, where each is assigned to a particular task to insure the greatest possible profitability. There is an authoritarian pyramidical organization of the factory, in the capitalist schema. In capitalist ideology, humans must serve the needs of industry and production, rather than placing the process of industrial production at the service of humanity. Since the capitalist owns and benefits from industrial production, this safeguards the capitalist's position of privilege. The factory system is but an expression of the bourgeoisie's dominant position as ruling class.

[tooAlive]

There is absolutely nothing "free" about capitalism. The worker labors in a factory, where each is assigned to a particular task to insure the greatest possible profitability. There is an authoritarian pyramidical organization of the factory, in the capitalist schema. In capitalist ideology, humans must serve the needs of industry and production, rather than placing the process of industrial production at the service of humanity. Since the capitalist owns and benefits from industrial production, this safeguards the capitalist's position of privilege. The factory system is but an expression of the bourgeoisie's dominant position as ruling class.

Under capitalism, a disgruntled worker and quit and start his or her own company.

How did Bill Gates start Microsoft? How did Steve Jobs start Apple?

Did they have millions of dollars to invest?

See, here's the thing. The typical worker has the mentality that they're incapable of doing anything on their own, and that their capitalist bosses are responsible for their shortcomings. With that mentality, none of them will ever do anything.

If Gates and Jobs thought like that, they would have never bother to start anything.

Why do so few succeed? Because so few have the correct mentality.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

[hetz]

Where there is a will, there is a way.

Then why you aren't rich?

[Questionable]

tooAlive keeps talking about how people can start their own business, but when I brought up that everyone starting their own business at once the economy would collapse because we ultimately need wage-workers to act as producers, who just went on a standard Randian tract about how the richest people in our society are that way because they're the strongest, most moral, most creative, blah blah blah, and everyone else just isn't working hard enough.

Then he said that poor people in other countries should just move to America and start their own business which shows he has a very narrow-minded selfish view of the world. Capitalism is fine to him because it's working for him (or he perceives it as working for him). Fuck everyone else.

[Jason]

All are not equal in abilities, but everybody can do something well. Under communism people are able to develop thier abilities to thier fullest, while, under capitalism it's often limited. For instance, how can a talented piano player in Haiti ever get discovered? Or, for that matter, how can he even discover he has talent?

Anyhow, this guy must have read the Harrison Bergeron story (from Kurt Vonnegut Jr.). No society could exist like that, even communists would agree.

Under capitalism, a disgruntled worker and quit and start his or her own company.

How did Bill Gates start Microsoft? How did Steve Jobs start Apple?

Did they have millions of dollars to invest?

See, here's the thing. The typical worker has the mentality that they're incapable of doing anything on their own, and that their capitalist bosses are responsible for their shortcomings. With that mentality, none of will ever do anything.

If Gates and Jobs thought like that, they would have never bother to start anything.

Why do so few succeed? Because so few have to correct mentality.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

Well, for one thing, a talented computer programmer has a tremendous advantage while living in the 1st world. However, (as I stated before in reference to a piano player) a computer programmer living in the third world might not be able to expand, or even learn computers to begin with. Why? Because the 1st world has extreme advantages. However, these advantages are derived from an unfair monopoly on trade (much like Ancient Rome). Communists agree this situation isn't just and will eventually lead to a major collapse.

Then why you aren't rich?

I'm all for ambition to "shoot to the stars". However, is the ambition include being part of an elite? That seems to be the goal of the "get rich" crowd. In a communist society people can aim to get 100 percent, but it's in the service of "the people".