# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  Re-writing Communism

## Lucid_boy

I am a Communist, really I am, a die-hard communist in fact, though I hate the 'C' word. I have been a communist for as long as I can remember (at least since I have cared enough to think about government) but even I see that the system has serious flaws. What I want this thread to be is a re-working of communism. A thread where we discuss what communism is, what we want it to be, and idea's to make it that way. By the way, when I say Communism, I don't mean it as in the Russian style of Communism, I mean something more open.

There are a few things that I don't want here; 

1. Although I will accept some debate as for as pro/Anti Communism goes, I want the main focus of the thread to be as described above. Also, anyone who points out a flaw should then help to work it out.

2. Posts such as 'Communism is gay, it never works'. As posted above, some debate will be accepted, but comments like these are not debate, they are trash.

3. Less annoying than the 'communism is gay' statement is the 'Anyone who  has read an Econ. book realizes that communism doesn't work' statement. Once again, we are here to talk about fixing the idea that is communism. 

Please post your thoughts.

----------


## Universal Mind

I know of a model you can use. Imagine a really big house with ten adults living in it. Three of the people living in the house are lazy ass bums who work as little as possible and mooch off people whenever given the opportunity. Two of the people in the house are hard workers because they want to have the money it takes to live in the house and to have extra spending money and also savings every month. The other roommates do a little bit above getting by for _themselves_. 

What we want to do is figure out how to make the household communist and still function effectively and fairly. Instead of each person paying his part of the rent, he/she just puts money in the rent and bill money box (Let's assume for now that nobody in the house has the power to steal money out of it.). Nobody is required on an individual level to put any certain amount of money in the box each month. However, if the bills don't get paid, the utilities get shut off. If the rent doesn't get paid, they get kicked out of the house. So, if anybody puts absolutely nothing into the box, the others have to compensate for what wasn't put in. 

What will happen? How can we adjust the system to make it work effectively... and fairly?

----------


## Kromoh

UM, now imagine the lazy ass is the son of a very rich CEO, and the hard-working person is an illegal immigrant. See why capitalism doesn't work? Because it's not a meritocracy.

----------


## Descensus

> UM, now imagine the lazy ass is the son of a very rich CEO, and the hard-working person is an illegal immigrant. See why capitalism doesn't work? Because it's not a meritocracy.



Not the best example to show why Capitalism doesn't work (that claim itself is pretty silly). That might be a case for the future failure of a company, though.

Edit - Actually, how is Capitalism not a meritocracy? Do the most efficient and consumer-oriented companies not move on to success? Government regulation aside, they do.

----------


## SkA_DaRk_Che

Pure communism (not Stalinism or Maoism - which are bad for obvious reasons) is bad for several reasons.

First, it makes the citizen subservient to the government rather than the government subservient to the citizen.

Second, while communism seeks to serve the whole, it fails to provide specific protections for the individual. 

Third, state control of resources, business, and income distribution stifles innovation as the human spirit is depraved of the will for personal success. The political party becomes the means for recognition as personal and business related endeavors are regarded as servitude to keep the state functioning. 

If you think communism is good, more power to you. Just don't forget where communism comes from and how it's supporters have used domination to deprive citizens of their rights, of their property, and of their lives in order to make it happen.

----------


## Universal Mind

> UM, now imagine the lazy ass is the son of a very rich CEO, and the hard-working person is an illegal immigrant. See why capitalism doesn't work? Because it's not a meritocracy.



Yes, some people have more money than others. Wrecking success because you don't like it would not be productive. 

What do you think will happen with the rent and bills in the house?

----------


## SkA_DaRk_Che

I don't think that Kromoh's analogy quite works because the son is a dependent of the father.

----------


## Kromoh

Oh yeah, so the problem is with my analogy? I'm not the one making an analogy of a closed house. I'm making what actually is an example. The amount of money you have isn't about how much you fought for it, but about what opportunities you had. Born rich, become richer. Born poor, become poorer. Vicious cycle. Social inequality skyrockets. You know, it's pretty silly, because the proponents of capitalism initially criticized social inequality, and now defend it. Hypocrites.

Also - economy isn't only about companies. It's about people too. People working for companies. Tell me for what reason shouldn't a company drop workers' salary in order to increase the owner's profit. Tell me for what reason should a company pollute and exploit resources without conscience. In capitalism, there is no reason at all.

----------


## Xaqaria

so if communism doesn't work, how can we very basically define the goal of communism and change the strategy so that it might actually be achieved? (I think this is the purpose of the thread)

I'd say the idealist goal of communism is to develop a system in which everyone has what they need to be happy and healthy.

----------


## Universal Mind

Kromoh, are you going to explain what the rent and bills situation at the house would be like?  I am having a hard time getting you to tell me about it.  

Do you really think nobody in a capitalist system goes from poor to rich through their efforts?  You are way off.  I have seen lots of people do it, including my parents.  They paid $3 a month on a dental bill when I was a kid. We lived in a $100 a month apartment with one bathroom that had a bath tub and no shower. Now my father is a millionaire.  It is because he worked for it.  I have seen several of their friends do it too.  All of them worked while going to school and graduate school and then climbed really high ladders after school.  Under a communist or socialist system, why climb?  Please tell me that.  Why would people in general want to climb?  If the financial reward isn't there and everybody gets the same thing no matter what, why not just answer a phone or sit on a lifeguard stand for a living?  I really want your explanation on that.  I have asked you about it before and never gotten an answer.

----------


## Descensus

> Why would people in general want to climb?  If the financial reward isn't there and everybody gets the same thing no matter what, why not just answer a phone or sit on a lifeguard stand for a living?



Because people want to work out of the good of their hearts for the greater good, duh.

----------


## Black_Eagle

Kromoh is right about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer thing. But then, we don't live in a fully capitalist society. In American society in particular, we have many scholarships and financial aid programs that help the children of less fortunate folk.

----------


## Descensus

> Kromoh is right about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer thing.



How so?

----------


## Kromoh

UM, don't ignore all the other things I've said. Your analogy is improper, because it doesn't consider the pre-existing rich of each of the people in the house. Something I've already explained.

Reply to my last post. Then, we can go on.

---

@ Blueline:

If you are born rich, you have access to better education, to better opportunities, and to financial support when starting a career. I think I do not have to explain to a capitalist that profit is proportional to investment. If you are, however, born in a poor family, you have access to bad education, have little opportunities, and no financial support at all when you become economically active. High chances are you'd end up in a lousy job. That's why it's a vicious cycle, and that is why social inequality has only been getting worse. It's not an opinion, it's a fact - all studies show social inequality is on exponential rise.

That is why capitalism isn't a meritocracy. If everyone started their economical activity with the same amount, and had the same opportunities, it would be a meritocracy, but that's not how it works. You probably don't see this because you're at the superior end on the social pyramid. If you were poor, you'd realize this presto.

----------


## Descensus

> @ Blueline:
> 
> If you are born rich, you have access to better education, to better opportunities, and to financial support when starting a career. I think I do not have to explain to a capitalist that profit is proportional to investment. If you are, however, born in a poor family, you have access to bad education, have little opportunities, and no financial support at all when you become economically active. High chances are you'd end up in a lousy job. That's why it's a vicious cycle, and that is why social inequality has only been getting worse. It's not an opinion, it's a fact - all studies show social inequality is on exponential rise.
> 
> That is why capitalism isn't a meritocracy. If everyone started their economical activity with the same amount, and had the same opportunities, it would be a meritocracy, but that's not how it works.



Would you agree that the definition of "meritocracy" is _a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement_, or something of that sort?

----------


## Universal Mind

> UM, don't ignore all the other things I've said. Your analogy is improper, because it doesn't consider the pre-existing rich of each of the people in the house. Something I've already explained.
> 
> Reply to my last post. Then, we can go on.



I know there are differences, as there are with all analogies. The point of an analogy is not to be identical. It is the relevant parallel that matters. The relevant parallel concerning the house and a nation is the level of efficiency and effectiveness in a system that lacks individual incentive. See the parallel? Now tell me how that house system would work.  Then tell me why I know people who went from rags to riches in a capitalist system. I also want the answer to my question of why people would climb the ladder if they are not rewarded for it.  You have dodged that question of mine repeatedly in several threads now.  I am not going to keep chasing every tangent you bring up. Answer my questions, and then we can move on to your next topic changes.

----------


## Black_Eagle

I'm assuming you're speaking of the global scale?

Just because social inequality is on the rise doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer.

----------


## Spartiate

The reason many Westerners have such a difficult time with the concept of communism is that they can't imagine any reason to work other than money.  The concept of the greater good is lost to them and it's all about elevating oneself above other individuals rather than forming groups and pooling resources.

This is a cultural issue, not an economic one.  There have been many examples of cultures working for other reasons than money.  Think of ancient Greek scientists, or the great minds of the Renaissance.  I hardly think they were motivated by money, more like the advancement of humankind.  Overcoming the mentality of individuality over collective good is the single greatest barrier against communism in the West.





> Pure communism (not Stalinism or Maoism - which are bad for obvious reasons) is bad for several reasons.
> 
> First, it makes the citizen subservient to the government rather than the government subservient to the citizen.
> 
> Second, while communism seeks to serve the whole, it fails to provide specific protections for the individual. 
> 
> Third, state control of resources, business, and income distribution stifles innovation as the human spirit is depraved of the will for personal success. The political party becomes the means for recognition as personal and business related endeavors are regarded as servitude to keep the state functioning. 
> 
> If you think communism is good, more power to you. Just don't forget where communism comes from and how it's supporters have used domination to deprive citizens of their rights, of their property, and of their lives in order to make it happen.



In communism, the citizens ARE the government, that's the whole point.  Of course it's impractical to hold a referendum over every minor issue, so there would have to be "bureaucrats" to take care of the day to day stuff, but a communist government seeks to be dictated by the masses as much as possible.  The fact that some nations of the 20th century that have declared themselves "communist" turned out to be more like dictatorships is an unfortunate cause of their individual social and political situations at the time, and was certainly not caused by the implementation of "communism" (if you can call it that).

Also communism is mostly an economic policy, so although ideally people have no material possessions, individual personal rights (or what we'd call human rights) are definitely preserved...

And in your third point you're still using a "worker vs state" mentality whereas in communism there is no distinction.  The worker doesn't work for the government, it IS the government...  His productivity should depend on how much he wants to improve the well being of all, and thus, himself included.


For me, the main problem with communism is that when it grows to very large sizes, there is a delay between the supply and demand causing shortages of needed items and abundance of common items.  I suppose the only counter to this would be to have several "centers" of government to cut down on red tape.  Taking cultural differences into account, it would be a challenge for everyone to stay on the same page.

----------


## SkA_DaRk_Che

> The reason many Westerners have such a difficult time with the concept of communism is that they can't imagine any reason to work other than money.  The concept of the greater good is lost to them and it's all about elevating oneself above other individuals rather than forming groups and pooling resources.
> 
> This is a cultural issue, not an economic one.  There have been many examples of cultures working for other reasons than money.  Think of ancient Greek scientists, or the great minds of the Renaissance.  I hardly think they were motivated by money, more like the advancement of humankind.  Overcoming the mentality of individuality over collective good is the single greatest barrier against communism in the West.



As i understand it the Greek Scientists and the great minds of the Renaissnace where simply intellectuals with a muse to pursue knowledge and expand the horizons of understanding. They did not pursue this as a profession I'm sure, the Greek Scientists had slaves and a great amount of leisure time to pursue their muses, the minds of the Renaissance had other professions within Academia or incorporated their studies into their professions as well.

It is simple to say people should work for the greater good etc, but try telling a man to go to university for 10-15 years to become an anatheisologist, or an other kind of Physician, and then to accept only minimum wage and some rations as a wage afterwards.

 Why would he spend his youth at university  just "for the greater good"? People need an economical incentive for their investment (time and money). That is not to say that the man does not like helping people, just he is not going to go to school for 15 years to become a highly speicalised physician and earn the same as a day labourer (when all is said and done and he has completed his studies).






> In communism, the citizens ARE the government, that's the whole point.  Of course it's impractical to hold a referendum over every minor issue, so there would have to be "bureaucrats" to take care of the day to day stuff, but a communist government seeks to be dictated by the masses as much as possible.  The fact that some nations of the 20th century that have declared themselves "communist" turned out to be more like dictatorships is an unfortunate cause of their individual social and political situations at the time, and was certainly not caused by the implementation of "communism" (if you can call it that).




In theory the citizens are the government, but it really does not work out that way in practice. Humans are by their nature greedy, it is no surprise that often after the communist party in a nation has taken stewardship of the nation that they often become a dictatorship and do not hold free elections and the whole gambit.





> Also communism is mostly an economic policy, so although ideally people have no material possessions, individual personal rights (or what we'd call human rights) are definitely preserved...
> 
> And in your third point you're still using a "worker vs state" mentality whereas in communism there is no distinction.  The worker doesn't work for the government, it IS the government...  His productivity should depend on how much he wants to improve the well being of all, and thus, himself included.



You make the critical assumption that communist nations are and were accountable to the people in the same way the government is in countries that have liberal democracies. While it is a fine line to say that in a communist nation the worker and the government are one and the same this proves to be a very difficult transition in practice(real life). 

In practice we have seen that without any real accountability to the people, the government becomes corrupt and alienates and betrays the people. Thus the rights are not preserved. 

This is the difference between idealism and practicality.

----------


## Universal Mind

Amen. Exactly. 





> ...



 ::shock::  Wow. A ghost from the past.  ::shock::  Welcome back.

----------


## Kromoh

> I know there are differences, as there are with all analogies. The point of an analogy is not to be identical. It is the relevant parallel that matters. The relevant parallel concerning the house and a nation is the level of efficiency and effectiveness in a system that lacks individual incentive. See the parallel? Now tell me how that house system would work.  Then tell me why I know people who went from rags to riches in a capitalist system. I also want the answer to my question of why people would climb the ladder if they are not rewarded for it.  You have dodged that question of mine repeatedly in several threads now.  I am not going to keep chasing every tangent you bring up. Answer my questions, and then we can move on to your next topic changes.



Oh well. You just don't wanna admit you have no answer for what I brought up. It's not tangent, it's the one single reason Capitalism doesn't work. It's the core of my arguments.

-------------------------------

BLUELINE, my definition of meritocracy is a different one. But still, Capitalism is not a meritocracy, even in your terms. A genius in Cambodia will never be rich. A genius in a rich family in England probably will.

----------


## tkdyo

Im sorry, it is easy to generalize the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer in capitalism, but apparently thats not what goes on or there wouldnt be a middle class that poor can go up to, or that from the middle can move to upper.  

As I see it, both pure communism and pure capitalism do not work.  One because of no guiding forces for the successful businesses to have to follow, the other because it does not take human greed in to account.  A balance of the two principles is needed.  Id write a detail of how but its late ><

----------


## Kromoh

> Im sorry, it is easy to generalize the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer in capitalism, but apparently thats not what goes on or there wouldnt be a middle class that poor can go up to, or that from the middle can move to upper.



Just a remark here. Social inequality has been getting worse day in and day out. The middle class starts to merge with the working class everywhere. The generalization here isn't improper at all. If there is anyone born poor that got rich, or born rich that got poor, you just know it's one rare exception.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Oh well. You just don't wanna admit you have no answer for what I brought up. It's not tangent, it's the one single reason Capitalism doesn't work. It's the core of my arguments.



You dodged all of my questions, some of which were points about new issues you brought up in order to dodge the previous questions, and you accuse me of dodging? Kromoh, I am not going to follow you on subject change after subject change. I made initial points and then asked you stump questions on your dodges. Now answer what I brought up, or we are through here. I guess you are stumped.

----------


## Spartiate

> As i understand it the Greek Scientists and the great minds of the Renaissnace where simply intellectuals with a muse to pursue knowledge and expand the horizons of understanding. They did not pursue this as a profession I'm sure, the Greek Scientists had slaves and a great amount of leisure time to pursue their muses, the minds of the Renaissance had other professions within Academia or incorporated their studies into their professions as well.



It is true that the great minds of Antiquity were often well-off and had no need to live off their inventions or philosophical teachings, but this is only because no average man back then _could_ spend time on any pursuit of knowledge.  They were uneducated and too busy plowing the fields to feed their families.  However, great scientists like Archimedes and Da Vinci _were_ engineers by trade (among other things), and they didn't sell their creations to the highest bidder.  I'm simply trying to establish that innovation can exist outside of the pursuit for profit.





> It is simple to say people should work for the greater good etc, but try telling a man to go to university for 10-15 years to become an anatheisologist, or an other kind of Physician, and then to accept only minimum wage and some rations as a wage afterwards.
> 
>  Why would he spend his youth at university  just "for the greater good"? People need an economical incentive for their investment (time and money). That is not to say that the man does not like helping people, just he is not going to go to school for 15 years to become a highly speicalised physician and earn the same as a day labourer (when all is said and done and he has completed his studies).



Technically speaking, in pure communism there is no exchange of money, no wages or bills (as there is nothing to own).  The state provides everything you could need in exchange for work.  Of course getting to that point would take a long, long, long time...  I don't see however how in the interim, the state couldn't compensate a person in accordance with the complexity of their work.  This is fairer even than ours, where teachers make half the wages of garbage men.

You raise a good point against pure communism though.  Although I don't believe there would be a shortage of people willing to spend the long years in university to become qualified in a very specialized field (as most people studying for these positions do so out of interest), I could see how nobody would be interested in less desirable but currently highly paid jobs (e.g. garbage man) that require little skill.  I suppose there could be a system where every citizen must "help out" with these jobs for short periods of time, kind of like jury duty.





> In theory the citizens are the government, but it really does not work out that way in practice. Humans are by their nature greedy, it is no surprise that often after the communist party in a nation has taken stewardship of the nation that they often become a dictatorship and do not hold free elections and the whole gambit.



The fact that many nations that have declared themselves "communist" were actually dictatorships has little to do with communism, which was rarely ever implemented in its proper sense.  The truth is that all these "communist" countries are the result of revolutions against previous dictators (not the most stable of political atmospheres here), and the revolutionary party used the notion of communism to gain the backing of the impoverished populace which was eager for a change and a spread of the wealth.  Just because these parties branded themselves as communist doesn't make it so, they were never communist from the start.  There has yet to be a politically stable, advanced society that has attempted to make a proper peaceful transition through socialism and into communism.

As for the notion of human greediness, it is a difficult concept for most people, but a group can achieve things an individual could never on his on.  There are simply more resources and ideas available to the "team".  I don't see people embracing that concept unless they experience a successful example of it themselves, chicken and egg thing...





> You make the critical assumption that communist nations are and were accountable to the people in the same way the government is in countries that have liberal democracies. While it is a fine line to say that in a communist nation the worker and the government are one and the same this proves to be a very difficult transition in practice(real life). 
> 
> In practice we have seen that without any real accountability to the people, the government becomes corrupt and alienates and betrays the people. Thus the rights are not preserved. 
> 
> This is the difference between idealism and practicality.



Once again, past examples of "communist" nations are deceiving.  All the perceived corruptions and human rights abuses are not a result of the implementation of communism, but rather the great confusion and social turmoil that was easily exploited by a few men following a massive national revolution.  

I'll cover the USSR right now since it's the most obvious example.  After centuries of drifting between the monarchy and the working class, Lenin and the Soviets revolted against the monarchy and created the Soviet Union.  So what do we have here: a leader inspired by communism who, after a long and bloody civil war, abolished a millennium-long form of government overnight with the backing of impoverished, uneducated farmers and factory workers.  This isn't really the most stable environment to successfully introduce such a radical political and economical concept as communism for the first time in history is it?  Well within a few years, Lenin died, and Stalin, seeing an opportunity in all this mess, took over the country (against Lenin's final wishes).  He turned out to be a brutal dictator and a pretty bad leader and the Soviet Union's pursuit of communism died _at that point_ (until Gorbachev unsuccessfully tried to bring it back in the 80s).  This is a pattern that repeats itself throughout the history of so-called communist nations, but really the concept that a communist regime should be totalitarian or centered around a single figure is a total contradiction...

I'm confident that if communism was to be progressively, properly established in a stable, peaceful country, the results would be much better than anything we've seen in the 20th century.





> Amen. Exactly. 
> 
> 
> 
>  Wow. A ghost from the past.  Welcome back.



Hey UM  :tongue2:

----------


## Spartiate

> Yet this revolution, which has brought the majority of people out of a pathetic existence, is seen as bad. I would wager such thoughts are due to the more apparent gap between the rich and the poor, which occurred after the revolution. The gap between a bunch of impoverished people relative to the wealthiest, put together in closer proximity to each other, is more apparent than having all the impoverished people spread out over many miles.



The industrial revolution on its own was not bad, quite the contrary.  The initial working conditions were bad but those were progressively improved with regulation.  I use the initial period of the industrial revolution as an argument against those who want to repeal such regulation.

----------


## Descensus

> The industrial revolution on its own was not bad, quite the contrary.  The initial working conditions were bad but those were progressively improved with regulation.  I use the initial period of the industrial revolution as an argument against those who want to repeal such regulation.



Our technology has moved us beyond the need for grueling manual labor 16 hours a day. We wouldn't go back to that with or without regulations. Technological advances made industrial-level working conditions disappear over time, not regulations.

----------


## GMoney

> To GMoney, if someone shoots me, and I have willingly been paying taxes to a goverment or insurance company that guarentees I will be taken care of, they owe me health service. But if I choose to save up for something else, or not pay for that service for whatever reason, then the doctor certainly doesn't owe me his time and money. As far as reporting the shooting, a police department wouldn't charge people for just reporting things in a capitalist model. If a police company did such a thing, they would be inneficient and stupid and would quickly go under allowing for better police models to win government subsidized contracts.



How would the police department make money?  Private companies can't operate with no revenue.

----------


## Descensus

> How would the police department make money?  Private companies can't operate with no revenue.



For simplicity's sake, subscriptions may be used.

And I highly doubt the refusal to charge people for simply reporting a crime would hamper a police department's ability to operate profitably.

----------


## GMoney

> For simplicity's sake, subscriptions may be used.
> 
> And I highly doubt the refusal to charge people for simply reporting a crime would hamper a police department's ability to operate profitably.



What if you don't have a subscription?  Will the police not defend you?

If everyone is required to have a subscription, wouldn't that be the same as the system that's in place now?

----------


## Descensus

> What if you don't have a subscription?  Will the police not defend you?
> 
> If everyone is required to have a subscription, wouldn't that be the same as the system that's in place now?



If you don't have a subscription, you're not paying for policing, and thus shouldn't expect to receive any. Does this mean you're effectively on your own? I'm not so sure. I assume that, if you're not paying for protection and receive it anyway, you're either a free rider (and thus lucky), or you get sent a bill in the mail.

Really, I don't see the problem of people not having protection as a big deal. Either their jobs provide benefits, they're part of a homeowner's association (or a neighborhood where people pay for policing [voluntarily]), or their insurance company requires it in order to pay lower premiums.

----------


## cmind

The free rider problem with regards to private police or fire has been solved already. You write a contract where you say "I will pay for police/fire services if at least X% of the rest of the people in this agreed-upon geographical area also pay". Now, we've eliminated the "first-payer" problem. Anyone who was on the fence about whether or not to pay, will pay if they get such a contract.

----------


## Spartiate

> Our technology has moved us beyond the need for grueling manual labor 16 hours a day. We wouldn't go back to that with or without regulations. Technological advances made industrial-level working conditions disappear over time, not regulations.



How do you think the clothes you are wearing was made?

----------


## Descensus

> How do you think the clothes you are wearing was made?



So long as fervent state intervention refrains from slowing down progress, the third-world countries you are undoubtedly alluding to (which make a large percentage of clothing for the West) will, over time, be more advanced.

----------


## Descensus

> I'm not a communist.  I'm just pointing out the flaws in capitalism and showing that socialism is better.



You haven't done much of either, really. You don't even appear to be using the term "socialism" correctly.

----------


## Spartiate

> So long as fervent state intervention refrains from slowing down progress, the third-world countries you are undoubtedly alluding to (which make a large percentage of clothing for the West) will, over time, be more advanced.



The reason that none of our clothes is made in North America is because labour is too expensive here.  We could probably build advanced robotic machinery to fabricate our clothes but it's cheaper still to open factories on the other side of the world where labour is cheaper and ship the products here.

If stuff like minimum wage and working hours disappeared, then there would be no reason to build sweatshops on the other side of the world, it'd be even cheaper to build them here, and wayyy cheaper than investing in automated machinery.

If those kinds of regulations had never existed in the first place, we'd most likely still have sweatshops in North America regardless of technology.

----------


## Descensus

> The reason that none of our clothes is made in North America is because labour is too expensive here.  We could probably build advanced robotic machinery to fabricate our clothes but it's cheaper still to open factories on the other side of the world where labour is cheaper and ship the products here.
> 
> If stuff like minimum wage and working hours disappeared, then there would be no reason to build sweatshops on the other side of the world, it'd be even cheaper to build them here, and wayyy cheaper than investing in automated machinery.
> 
> If those kinds of regulations had never existed in the first place, we'd most likely still have sweatshops in North America regardless of technology.



The only people who would get a job in such a sweatshop are those who are desperate for experience.  After that, they'd move on to another less desperate job.  In other words, expect a lot of employee turnover.  

Also, I'd still say it is less expensive in other countries, since nobody would work for less than $2 per hour in America.  So unless you are looking for extremely desperate people, sweatshops in other countries would still be cheaper, at least right now. Give it a few more years, maybe a decade or two, and the sweatshops in China and India ought to disappear on their own, as long as nothing stops that from happening. And by on their own, I mean that people wouldn't apply for such jobs.

Then it'd move on to another country or continent, probably Africa and the Middle East, and after that...well, there are no more major geographic areas with cheap labor.

----------


## spockman

> What if you don't have a subscription?  Will the police not defend you?
> 
> If everyone is required to have a subscription, wouldn't that be the same as the system that's in place now?



The police, like doctors, don't owe you anything if you don't give them anything in return. I fail to see why this is an appalling concept. Anyway, governments could bid out contracts for police agencies. If government A payed poorly where the agency couldn't make any profit without charging individual citizens high amounts, but government B payed well and funded it's police with little need for private payers, government B, (at least in the police it offers,) would look more appealing than government A. So government B could get more citizens and thus more tax dollars. (This is all in a system with no political borders, where paying taxes is voluntary and citzenship is not determined by geography.)

----------


## Oneiro

I too am a (theoretical, idealist) communist, meaning that I believe in the inherent principle of all for one and one for all, while accepting that, in practice, its been unworkable due to the inherent corruptibility of Man. Of course, this factor could also be said to manifest in any socio-political system: the higher up you go, the more the temptation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely etc etc.. but I never gave up on the basic ethic: take care of everybody in a fair and equal way.. a socio-political symmetry of justice and economy...

..and.. I'm beginning, just beginning, mind you, to think that it might just be possible sometime in the future..

So Im going to throw something in here, which may cause some guffaws out there in the Multibrane: its a full understanding of Quantum Mechanics that could produce technology that may ultimately set us free. If and when we learn how to manipulate the sub-atomic, then theoretically we will be able to assemble any atomic structure. This is not so far-fetched as this may sound. Some scientists aver that they are close to this level of technology. Forget for a moment building a Ferrari from quantum level up: think of relatively simple structures, like water, for example. If we learn a cheap (very important) way to do this, wed be able to assemble molecules of  water which could be manufactured en masse up a mountain for example, leading to gravity-induced cheap electricity. Its the ultimate costs involved which will determine how liberating this discovery may be: for it to work in the way Ive described, it has to be cheap enough to do. Following on from this comes the manufacture of more complex structures, ultimately leading to manufacture of anything inanimate. If and when we ever get to such a point of such technological discovery, it remains to be seen what the powers that be would do with it. Just as it  may be discovered how to manufacture cheaply water, drugs, food etc, it will then be possible to manufacture the nasty stuff, like nerve gases, explosive materials etc etc., not to mention the manufacture of precious gems and metals, the effect of  which could rip through the world economy. The question is: will Man ever be ready to embrace such discoveries to make the planet a better place, or will greed and corruption forever hold sway?

Are the good guys/gals ever going to win? Lets hope so..

----------


## stormcrow

I admire the Marxist "spirit of opposition" as well as the desire for equality but I dont not believe the answers lie in having a "strong central government" as Marxism always leads to. I dont however have any alternative solutions to offer, I can only resign and say people will always be people. But thats just a little defeatist, I hope we can find an alternative to capitalism though even if that alternative is no government.

----------


## SKA

Global Revolution is uppon us. For too many people it's becomming far too obvious how extensively they've been lied to and how extensively they have been exploited.
Even the fearfully Naïve who hold on firmly to a false, cmforting belief that we are free and democratic and civiliised and all that crap, are now undeniably confronted with it.

The flame of the Middle Eastern Revolutions will surely leap over to Asia, America and Europe.
Long live the Internet.

----------


## Spartiate

I keep hoping that this thread never gets bumped again lest I waste more hours of my life in it  :tongue2: ...

Still a communist.

----------


## Laughing Man

> I keep hoping that this thread never gets bumped again lest I waste more hours of my life in it ...
> 
> Still a communist.



Marxism has long been refuted. Unless you like inconsistency, can you enlighten me as to why you are still a communist?

----------


## Descensus

> Marxism has long been refuted. Unless you like inconsistency, can you enlighten me as to why you are still a communist?



Because it's what all the cool, "enlightened" kids like, duh.

----------


## Laughing Man

> I admire the Marxist "spirit of opposition" as well as the desire for equality but I dont not believe the answers lie in having a "strong central government" as Marxism always leads to. I dont however have any alternative solutions to offer, I can only resign and say people will always be people. But thats just a little defeatist, I hope we can find an alternative to capitalism though even if that alternative is no government.



First, Marxism doesn't necessarily mean "strong central government." The dictatorship of the proletariat uses dictatorship in Roman conceptual sense in which a certain class or individual was given emergency powers over the governing body. Therefore according to Marx the dictatorship of the bourgeois would become the dictatorship of the proletariat in which the proletariat, now being the majority due to class immiseration and concentration of capital, would carry out emergency powers against the remaining property owning bourgeois who are few in number. Since they are few, this wouldn't take very long after which would be Crude Communism and then Pure Communism.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Because it's what all the cool, "enlightened" kids like, duh.



Well that's the problem I keep running into. No one really reads/understands communism anymore. A lot of people are just posers with no theoretical background.
-"Why do you support communism?" 
-"Because it's the right thing to do! It's morally good"
Ridiculous statements like this are usually the answer and communism has nothing to do with what is moral or unmoral.

----------


## Spartiate

How can you refute Marxism?  It's a social concept, it either works well or works crummy depending on a zillion circumstances.  It's not a mathematical equation or a scientific hypothesis.  Also Marxism and communism aren't interchangeable.

I believe that certain basic needs should be satisfied by the state and that private industry should be regulated to protect the consumer (or the industry).  The state should be the most powerful entity within a country because it is the only entity that every citizen has control over.  I also believe that pooling together resources will ultimately attain greater achievements than competition (although at a slower rate).  Lastly I wish for every person to have the same opportunities in life regardless of the socio-economic condition they were brought up in.

----------


## Descensus

> Well that's the problem I keep running into. No one really reads/understands communism anymore. A lot of people are just posers with no theoretical background.
> -"Why do you support communism?" 
> -"Because it's the right thing to do! It's morally good"
> Ridiculous statements like this are usually the answer and communism has nothing to do with what is moral or unmoral.



I've noticed a lot of new-agers support communism simply because "oh well we're all reaching a consciousness switch and we're all one...therefore, communism." It's strange, really.

----------


## stormcrow

> First, Marxism doesn't necessarily mean "strong central government." The dictatorship of the proletariat uses dictatorship in Roman conceptual sense in which a certain class or individual was given emergency powers over the governing body. Therefore according to Marx the dictatorship of the bourgeois would become the dictatorship of the proletariat in which the proletariat, now being the majority due to class immiseration and concentration of capital, would carry out emergency powers against the remaining property owning bourgeois who are few in number. Since they are few, this wouldn't take very long after which would be Crude Communism and then Pure Communism.



I didnt mean that Marxism means strong central government I meant that it historically, in practice has led to centralized dictatorships. Keep in mind America started out by the motto "A government that governs least governs best" and look at us now. Is no organized government an option in this thread or are communism and capitalism the only options to choose from?

----------


## Laughing Man

> How can you refute Marxism?  It's a social concept, it either works well or works crummy depending on a zillion circumstances.  It's not a mathematical equation or a scientific hypothesis.  Also Marxism and communism aren't interchangeable.
> 
> I believe that certain basic needs should be satisfied by the state and that private industry should be regulated to protect the consumer (or the industry).  The state should be the most powerful entity within a country because it is the only entity that every citizen has control over.  I also believe that pooling together resources will ultimately attain greater achievements than competition (although at a slower rate).  Lastly I wish for every person to have the same opportunities in life regardless of the socio-economic condition they were brought up in.



Yes, I can refute Marxism but I'm certainly not the first people to do so. The first person was Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk in _Karl Marx and the Close of His System_ which was written back in the 1890's. Marxism isn't a social concept though. To denote that it is social is to miss the point of the economic base/superstructure. It is first and foremost an ideology which believe that certain dialectical laws bring about certain conditions of humanity. It explains the events of the past and projects the events of the future through these dialectical laws. How it "works" or "doesn't work" isn't the point. According to Marx it will be, not that it should be. But all this is irrelevant because you aren't a communist, you are actually a fascist. Before you get all in a tizzy, I'm not saying this as an insult but in the course of you saying what you believe you are expounding upon fascist doctrines. I will show you.
*
"I believe that certain basic needs should be satisfied by the state and that private industry should be regulated to protect the consumer (or the industry)."*
 Firstly, public goods being satisfied by the state creates a dependence upon the state. Citizenry then see said dependence and look toward the state as a paternal figure breeding a sense of nationalism. Also intervention into the market in order to "protect the consumer" breeds the same dependence and paternal outlook. 
*
"The state should be the most powerful entity within a country because it is the only entity that every citizen has control over."*

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - Benito Mussolini
*
"I also believe that pooling together resources will ultimately attain greater achievements than competition (although at a slower rate)"*\

So you preach corporatism and cartelization. Corporatism being the unity between government and corporate power in order to achieve efficiency in the market and to prevent "cut throat competition" which detracts from productivity. Again I turn to Mussolini:

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

*
"Lastly I wish for every person to have the same opportunities in life regardless of the socio-economic condition they were brought up in. "*
This last piece is just wishy-washy emotional egalitarianism that is impossible to apply to the real world. Though you can say that you perceive individuals as so similar they will experience the same lifestyles and therefore only the aggregation of the citizenry matter because they are all having the same "opportunities" and all experiencing the same experiences therefore leading to the point that greatest of a people is measured by how well the aggregate is able to experience the same things.

----------


## Laughing Man

> I didnt mean that Marxism means strong central government I meant that it historically, in practice has led to centralized dictatorships. Keep in mind America started out by the motto "A government that governs least governs best" and look at us now. Is no organized government an option in this thread or are communism and capitalism the only options to choose from?



Well capitalism isn't a governmental style. It is a economic outlook. It implies certain governing styles in order to work but that is a different topic. What happened in the communist countries is why I denoted "necessarily" in my writings. The dictatorship of the proletariat will never stop being a dictatorship. There will always be the use of emergency powers, especially when said emergency powers are put into the hands of those who run the state apparatus. Humanity will never get past Crude Communism, which is what Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba experienced or is experiencing right now.

----------


## Alric

I like their ideal too, but I think all communist and socialist are all going about it backwards. Regardless of the system they try to implement, it all basically boils down to putting in a fascist and dictatorship type government. They get stronger and stronger governments, which only become more corrupt, more greedy and more broken.

If you want to reach the ideal, you need to go the other way, voluntarily sharing of resources. You can't force people to share and help each other, and trying to only makes things worse. You can however expect people to do it willingly, and you will not be disappointed by the results. When people are doing well, and they have what they want, they don't mind sharing and helping each other out.

People do it all the time on a family level. They do it pretty often in local communities as well. And if you give them the chance they do it on larger scale as well. It isn't the ideal of sharing that is wrong, its the lets force everyone to share in the way we demand upon our own terms, that is horribly wrong and doomed to fail.

----------


## Laughing Man

> I've noticed a lot of new-agers support communism simply because "oh well we're all reaching a consciousness switch and we're all one...therefore, communism." It's strange, really.



Well not so much. This goes back to the Hegelian theory that we are all descended from a collective mass that is seeking out our perfection as a species after which we will return to God whole. Check out Rothbard's Ideology and Theories of History

----------


## Spartiate

> But all this is irrelevant because you aren't a communist, you are actually a fascist. Before you get all in a tizzy, I'm not saying this as an insult but in the course of you saying what you believe you are expounding upon fascist doctrines. I will show you.



I may not be a Marxist, but I am most definitely communist, and certainly not fascist.  Let me clarify...

I would love to live in pure communism and go around advocating for common ownership and a stateless society, but I recognize that this is currently not feasible or useful.  Knowing this, unless I am talking highly hypothetically, I will advocate for the next best thing, which is what most people would call socialism or socialist policies (state services, state intervention in the economy, etc.)

Although fascism does share some elements with socialism, there are many ideals of fascism I do not support.  For instance, its authoritarian nature, its militarism and its idolatry of the state and its leaders.





> Firstly, public goods being satisfied by the state creates a dependence upon the state. Citizenry then see said dependence and look toward the state as a paternal figure breeding a sense of nationalism. Also intervention into the market in order to "protect the consumer" breeds the same dependence and paternal outlook.



Only when the state portrays itself as such.  I don't see the state as an authority that is above us all, but as a process that I and all other citizens participate in.  





> "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - Benito Mussolini



I said most powerful, not exclusive...  This is so that the citizens of a country remain more powerful than any private entity.





> So you preach corporatism and cartelization. Corporatism being the unity between government and corporate power in order to achieve efficiency in the market and to prevent "cut throat competition" which detracts from productivity. Again I turn to Mussolini:
> 
> "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."



I made no such claim.  I could have been talking about state-run enterprises for all you know.  Corporatism without authoritarianism is also not fascism.





> This last piece is just wishy-washy emotional egalitarianism that is impossible to apply to the real world. Though you can say that you perceive individuals as so similar they will experience the same lifestyles and therefore only the aggregation of the citizenry matter because they are all having the same "opportunities" and all experiencing the same experiences therefore leading to the point that greatest of a people is measured by how well the aggregate is able to experience the same things.



And you dismiss the most telltale piece of evidence that I am a communist...  What is emotional about it?  It makes perfect social and economic sense for a person to be able to achieve their full potential in their life regardless of where they were born or raised.  This is very easy to achieve, simply provide the essentials of life (housing, sustenance, education, healthcare, etc.) so that every person has the same opportunities (not "is the same" as some anti-communist propaganda would have you believe) and is free to pursue more important things.

----------


## Laughing Man

> I may not be a Marxist, but I am most definitely communist, and certainly not fascist.  Let me clarify...
> 
> I would love to live in pure communism and go around advocating for common ownership and a stateless society, but I recognize that this is currently not feasible or useful.  Knowing this, unless I am talking highly hypothetically, I will advocate for the next best thing, which is what most people would call socialism or socialist policies (state services, state intervention in the economy, etc.)
> 
> Although fascism does share some elements with socialism, there are many ideals of fascism I do not support.  For instance, its authoritarian nature, its militarism and its idolatry of the state and its leaders.



So you don't like authoritarian measures but you want state intervention into the economic livelihood of individuals? I'm guessing state services will be provided by taxation, how is that not authoritative?  Your idolatry is implicit in your writings. You perceive the state as the ultimate decision maker, the one that should have all the power in a society. You might as well be burning incense for it. 

Socialism isn't a separate entity from communism. Socialism is the overarching theme in communism. Communism is just sub-philosophy of socialism just like fascism and aristocratic conservatism.  







> Only when the state portrays itself as such.  I don't see the state as an authority that is above us all, but as a process that I and all other citizens participate in.



Well that is incoherent if you pair that comment with your earlier premise that the state should be the ultimate power in a given area.  







> I said most powerful, not exclusive...  This is so that the citizens of a country remain more powerful than any private entity.



You are presenting the state as if all are in agreement with it when really it is mob rule writ large. That is unless you are propounding representative democracy instead of direct democracy in which case you are just promoting an oligarchy of elites in which cause it has a tendency to become exclusive. 







> I made no such claim.  I could have been talking about state-run enterprises for all you know.  Corporatism without authoritarianism is also not fascism.



That's because corporatism without authoritarianism can't exist. The natural competition of a market rebukes such a notion and naturally leads to a dissolution of voluntary cartels / labor pools. Why do you think the corporate interests of the United States needed to go to the government at the end of the 19th century? Because they sought monopolies which, barring the improper definition of them today, were seen as writs of exclusive production given by the government in a certain market sector. 







> And you dismiss the most telltale piece of evidence that I am a communist...  What is emotional about it?  It makes perfect social and economic sense for a person to be able to achieve their full potential in their life regardless of where they were born or raised.  This is very easy to achieve, simply provide the essentials of life (housing, sustenance, education, healthcare, etc.) so that every person has the same opportunities (not "is the same" as some anti-communist propaganda would have you believe) and is free to pursue more important things.



And I'm a unicorn. Just because you say you are something doesn't infer that you actually are it especially when you have an improper conception of what you say you are. Geography by its very nature dismisses your premise that all individuals at all times can have the same opportunities for what if I live in a desert and you in rain forest? What if I live in the tundra and you in the temperate? And how you do finance such provisions (food, housing, education, healthcare)? Voluntary contributions or taxation? It cannot be voluntary because everyone would give disproportionate amounts leading to the selective nature of distribution of charity. It could be taxes but again you run into the problem of differing tax brackets and the only "cure" is one in which the government takes all the funds of everyone then distributes to them what THEY deem necessary thereby making it authoritative and no longer what you supposedly advocate. Really the only way to allow people to carry out their goals, to realize their true potential is libertarianism.

----------


## Spartiate

> So you don't like authoritarian measures but you want state intervention into the economic livelihood of individuals? I'm guessing state services will be provided by taxation, how is that not authoritative?  Your idolatry is implicit in your writings. You perceive the state as the ultimate decision maker, the one that should have all the power in a society. You might as well be burning incense for it.



I'm sure you can spot the difference between heavily taxed, peaceful countries like Canada or Denmark, and authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany or fascist Italy.  By your definition, every country on Earth is authoritarian as every country levies taxes, but know that this is not the popular use of the word.  I'm also sure you can spot the difference between the state providing essential services to its citizens and demanding worship with military parades or purposefully spreading disinformation in state media. 





> Socialism isn't a separate entity from communism. Socialism is the overarching theme in communism. Communism is just sub-philosophy of socialism just like fascism and aristocratic conservatism.



Socialism is very much a middle ground between communism, capitalism and the "third way" of fascism.  Prominent communists like Marx considered it a stepping stone towards communism.





> Well that is incoherent if you pair that comment with your earlier premise that the state should be the ultimate power in a given area.



I don't see how it's incoherent at all.  The state is composed of all its citizens; no private entity should be above the influence of the state, simple.  I didn't say we should call the state "Fatherland" or hang pictures of our leaders in classrooms or anything else like what you seem to be expecting.





> You are presenting the state as if all are in agreement with it when really it is mob rule writ large. That is unless you are propounding representative democracy instead of direct democracy in which case you are just promoting an oligarchy of elites in which cause it has a tendency to become exclusive.



Most people in a given area will have similar needs.  If the area is so large that the people are constantly polarized on key issues (which is often the case when you have more than one "culture") then divide up the area into workable political entities.  Direct democracy is impractical when we start talking about populations in the millions.  A lot of people are idiots anyways and honestly shouldn't have anything to do with the day-to-day affairs of running a country.  A transparent, representative democracy is a workable solution because the people don't have to worry about handling day-to-day affairs, they just have to come to an agreement as to if the politician is doing a good job or not.  It is also not an oligarchy because politicians can be removed from power if they are not meeting the people's expectations.  In this day and age with the ease of accessing and sharing information, average citizens are able to participate in political affairs much more easily rendering the system less exclusive.





> That's because corporatism without authoritarianism can't exist. The natural competition of a market rebukes such a notion and naturally leads to a dissolution of voluntary cartels / labor pools. Why do you think the corporate interests of the United States needed to go to the government at the end of the 19th century? Because they sought monopolies which, barring the improper definition of them today, were seen as writs of exclusive production given by the government in a certain market sector.



Again, your loose definition of authoritarianism leads every socialist to appear fascist.  In any case I was mostly referring to state-run enterprises.





> And I'm a unicorn. Just because you say you are something doesn't infer that you actually are it especially when you have an improper conception of what you say you are. Geography by its very nature dismisses your premise that all individuals at all times can have the same opportunities for what if I live in a desert and you in rain forest? What if I live in the tundra and you in the temperate? And how you do finance such provisions (food, housing, education, healthcare)? Voluntary contributions or taxation? It cannot be voluntary because everyone would give disproportionate amounts leading to the selective nature of distribution of charity. It could be taxes but again you run into the problem of differing tax brackets and the only "cure" is one in which the government takes all the funds of everyone then distributes to them what THEY deem necessary thereby making it authoritative and no longer what you supposedly advocate. Really the only way to allow people to carry out their goals, to realize their true potential is libertarianism.



Actually I'd call you an anarchist.  How does geography affect the distribution of education or healthcare?  The point is to have all the essentials taken care of so that a person doesn't have to slave their life away just getting by, this way they can concentrate on their interests and meaningful employment that is in line with their abilities, not their parents' wallet.  How is libertarianism going to shorten the divide between poor and rich?  How likely is a kid from the ghetto going to get post-secondary education?  Or will he most likely be an unskilled labourer or a criminal...  Right now geography and other factors that are out of our control have too much influence on our lives.

Now this is round 4 (?) for me in this thread... so I'll just cut right to the chase.  You believe against any sort of imposition on a person, which precludes the existence of a government.  I don't have this belief.  Humans are social animals and for a society to function it is sometimes necessary to impose small sacrifices on individuals for the good of all.

----------


## Alric

Just look at how many people are living pay check to pay check. If they weren't paying such high taxes, they would have more money to live on. You have to remember that every thing costs money. So you have two choice. Either you keep your money and spend it how you see fit, or you give your money to the government and they spend it the way they see fit. The problem is the government is usually a lot less effective, and more wasteful than individuals are. So you are basically paying a far larger amount in taxes, than it would cost you to get the same 'basic' services yourself.

Bureaucracy are by their nature wasteful and larger governments are always the least efficient spender of money.  So if you are trying to maximize the number of people you help, you have to realize government isn't a good option.

----------


## Spartiate

People who don't make lots of money don't pay lots of taxes.  For instance, I work weekends at one job and my last paycheck was 560$ gross, and 520$ after taxes.  If you make over 50k/year and are living paycheck to paycheck, well that's a lifestyle choice.

----------


## Alric

You include social security and medicare as well? Because that is money I pay, and will never see again. Lets say you only pay 40 dollars a week in taxes though. That is still 2000 dollars a year. Poor people may pay less taxes, but they are the ones who need the money more than anyone else. So that little bit, still hurts them.

----------


## GMoney

> You include social security and medicare as well? Because that is money I pay, and will never see again. Lets say you only pay 40 dollars a week in taxes though. That is still 2000 dollars a year. Poor people may pay less taxes, but they are the ones who need the money more than anyone else. So that little bit, still hurts them.



...but the recipients of Social Security and Medicare need the money.  Taxes are necessary for the benefit of the community, as in universal, single-payer healthcare.  It's better that the poor pay a small amount of taxes and have guaranteed healthcare than to have them keep it as spending money only to die because they lacked preventive care.

----------


## Alric

Yea but if that poor person can't afford food, then they die of starvation, and no amount of preventive care replaces basic needs. People can make an argument over what should or shouldn't be done by the government, and there are opposing sides to each of them. Some taxes are likely needed, however we are mainly talking about high taxes. Government simply can't do everything for people, and trying to charge us high taxes to get the money to try and fill every need of every person is just a huge waste of time and money. We should be looking at low taxes that focuses on the key issues.

Which goes back to communism and how they turn into totalitarian states. They keep trying to control everything, and that just isn't possible, and it isn't practical at all. It causes so many problems. I am not an anarchist who thinks we shouldn't have any government at all. I am a libertarian and I believe you need to have small government, that only covers the basic key things needed.

----------


## Laughing Man

> I'm sure you can spot the difference between heavily taxed, peaceful countries like Canada or Denmark, and authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany or fascist Italy.  By your definition, every country on Earth is authoritarian as every country levies taxes, but know that this is not the popular use of the word.  I'm also sure you can spot the difference between the state providing essential services to its citizens and demanding worship with military parades or purposefully spreading disinformation in state media.



Both governments are authoritative. It's not a matter of principle but a matter of degrees. 







> Socialism is very much a middle ground between communism, capitalism and the "third way" of fascism.  Prominent communists like Marx considered it a stepping stone towards communism.



Not really since both communism and fascism is a subset philosophy of socialism. Fascism is the socialism of the right, and communism the socialism of the left. 







> I don't see how it's incoherent at all.  The state is composed of all its citizens; no private entity should be above the influence of the state, simple.  I didn't say we should call the state "Fatherland" or hang pictures of our leaders in classrooms or anything else like what you seem to be expecting.



You don't see the incoherence in thinking that the state should be superior over all private individuals but then say:
"I don't see the state as an authority that is above us all"







> Most people in a given area will have similar needs.  If the area is so large that the people are constantly polarized on key issues (which is often the case when you have more than one "culture") then divide up the area into workable political entities.  Direct democracy is impractical when we start talking about populations in the millions.  A lot of people are idiots anyways and honestly shouldn't have anything to do with the day-to-day affairs of running a country.  A transparent, representative democracy is a workable solution because the people don't have to worry about handling day-to-day affairs, they just have to come to an agreement as to if the politician is doing a good job or not.  It is also not an oligarchy because politicians can be removed from power if they are not meeting the people's expectations.  In this day and age with the ease of accessing and sharing information, average citizens are able to participate in political affairs much more easily rendering the system less exclusive.



So people shouldn't be involved in day-to-day affairs but again you think the state is something we participate in. Can you see the contradiction in this? You want to establish an oligarchical government in which certain people can dictate the day-to-day operations of other individuals? What happened to the egalitarianism? Oh wait they can just vote people out of power? Wonder, if you are the majority. Democracy just gives way to plutocrats who will give government favors to those who get them into office. 







> Again, your loose definition of authoritarianism leads every socialist to appear fascist.  In any case I was mostly referring to state-run enterprises.



Because all fascists are socialists. Is the state going to have a monopoly on the providing of the list you stated before? The food, shelter, healthcare, water list.







> Actually I'd call you an anarchist.  How does geography affect the distribution of education or healthcare?  The point is to have all the essentials taken care of so that a person doesn't have to slave their life away just getting by, this way they can concentrate on their interests and meaningful employment that is in line with their abilities, not their parents' wallet.  How is libertarianism going to shorten the divide between poor and rich?  How likely is a kid from the ghetto going to get post-secondary education?  Or will he most likely be an unskilled labourer or a criminal...  Right now geography and other factors that are out of our control have too much influence on our lives.
> 
> Now this is round 4 (?) for me in this thread... so I'll just cut right to the chase.  You believe against any sort of imposition on a person, which precludes the existence of a government.  I don't have this belief.  Humans are social animals and for a society to function it is sometimes necessary to impose small sacrifices on individuals for the good of all.



Are all teachers in all the United States on the same level of expertise? Are all state education programs run the same way? Do all states have the same exact pollution problems? How does one better the living standards of a people? Through increase purchasing dollar of the monetary unit ( the increase in buying power of money ) and the increase in productive power of capital causing an increase in supply which leads to lowering prices. These two tenets go hand in hand. Discontinue government interference between two consenting parties ( minimum wage laws, child labor laws, EPA regulations, OSHA regulations ) and cut inflation allowing people to save thereby increasing long-term investment which will allow for research/construction of capital efficiency. You are also stuck in this notion that everyone has to go to college when many jobs actually train their employees what to do at their job. Now there are some technical professions that demand higher education but not everyone takes on these professions. Also realize that college is so expensive these days because of government granted loans. Schools can keep upping the cost of tuition because students can just get more loans to pay for it. There is really no point in getting thousands of dollars in debt unless you cannot go without the recognition of a degree or the technical knowledge of higher education. 

Yes humans are social animals but just because we are social doesn't infer the right of ANY individual to make choices concerning what they sacrifice for them. If you want to consent to such a lifestyle that is your choice and people should be good enough to respect it. In reality there is no "good for all." It's a common mistake for those that preach utilitarianism. You cannot quantify how much better off people supposedly are because of some proposition and qualitative difference is subjective to the individual at hand. Really, the term the "good for all" is just a justification for the few to hoodwink the many.

----------


## Laughing Man

> ...but the recipients of Social Security and Medicare need the money.  Taxes are necessary for the benefit of the community, as in universal, single-payer healthcare.  It's better that the poor pay a small amount of taxes and have guaranteed healthcare than to have them keep it as spending money only to die because they lacked preventive care.



How does it follow that since you think people need healthcare, that you think it is right for the government to rob people? Because that is what you are doing, you don't have the fortitude to rob people but you rationalize others to do it for you.

----------


## Awakening

What about the New Deal? Socialist measures that boosted the economy and workers rights at same time. It's a proof that government is a good tool if used the right way.

----------


## Descensus

> What about the New Deal? Socialist measures that boosted the economy and workers rights at same time. It's a proof that government is a good tool if used the right way.



Only if you accept the premise that the New Deal actually brought the U.S. economy out of the depression.

----------


## Awakening

> Only if you accept the premise that the New Deal actually brought the U.S. economy out of the depression.



What brought the U.S. entirely out of depression was the WW II. But the New Deal made a fair amount of recovery, don't you agree?

----------


## Descensus

> What brought the U.S. entirely out of depression was the WW II.



In order for this to be true, one would have to explain how death and destruction plays a role in economic recovery. They would also have to explain why the U.S. economy didn't collapse again after WW2 ended if it was such a driving force behind recovery.





> But the New Deal made a fair amount of recovery, don't you agree?



No, for I would wager the New Deal prolonged the depression, and that the dissolution of New Deal policies around the WW2 period allowed real economic recovery to occur.

----------


## Alric

There are a lot of people who believe WW 2 and the new deal caused the depression to drag on longer than it would have otherwise.  Myself being included in that. While the new deal created a lot of jobs in one area, the increase in taxes killed jobs in other area's. The money we wasted on the war, also drained a lot out of the economy. 

The worst thing about that time however, was the massive expansion of government, which is harming us to this very day. Social security was created that time, and it has been choking the life out of our economy ever since. It is now the biggest drain on our economy. Once upon a time our country wasn't in debt, however since the New Deal, our government has been in debt ever since. It put such a burden on us, we have never been able to escape that debt. It was the start of the horrible snowball that has grown totally out of control and now seeks to destroy our entire way of life.

The US is bankrupt. 14,186,563,596,330 dollars in debt. Most people are beginning to realize that we will never be able to pay off the debt. At least not with massive inflation that will wipe out all the savings in our country. This all started back then.

----------


## Awakening

> In order for this to be true, one would have to explain how death and destruction plays a role in economic recovery. They would also have to explain why the U.S. economy didn't collapse again after WW2 ended if it was such a driving force behind recovery.



The Allies needed supplies of materials for war, and the U.S. sold it to them. It boosted the economy and employment.






> No, for I would wager the New Deal prolonged the depression, and that the dissolution of New Deal policies around the WW2 period allowed real economic recovery to occur.



The economic bubble was the result of too much economic liberalism. One should expect some government intervention on economy after that crash. Why would 100% liberalism do it better?

----------


## cmind

> The economic bubble was the result of too much economic liberalism.



Please, go on.

----------


## Descensus

> The Allies needed supplies of materials for war, and the U.S. sold it to them. It boosted the economy and employment.



This doesn't really answer the questions I proposed.

The whole point of an economy is to satisfy the demands of consumers. The sort of jobs "created" for the war did not include creating goods and tending to services desired by the consumer base. Furthermore, such jobs were "created" at the expense of possible job creation in the productive sector of the economy, and when one factors in the drafting of people into the military, the amount of workers available was significantly less. One must also factor in the loss of the workers drafted into the military due to death. And of course, one must factor in the fact that any goods produced for the war, which allegedly lead to increased economic activity and by extension recovery, were destined to be destroyed, and most were.

As Mises said, "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings."





> The economic bubble was the result of too much economic liberalism. One should expect some government intervention on economy after that crash. Why would 100% liberalism do it better?



How was the bubble the result of too much economic liberalism? By liberalism I assume you mean something akin to free markets.

----------


## spockman

> How was the bubble the result of too much economic liberalism? By liberalism I assume you mean something akin to free markets.



Ours is the only country I can think of that uses liberal to mean more regulation.

----------


## Descensus

> Ours is the only country I can think of that uses liberal to mean more regulation.



The common claim is that the bubble was due to too little regulation, or that Hoover exacerbated the crash by allegedly not doing anything to ease it. Since economic liberalism can also be taken to mean something akin to free markets, it's probably more likely that's what he meant.

----------


## spockman

> The common claim is that the bubble was due to too little regulation, or that Hoover exacerbated the crash by allegedly not doing anything to ease it. Since economic liberalism can also be taken to mean something akin to free markets, it's probably more likely that's what he meant.



Yeah, were he American I would think liberalism to mean democratic policies. But he appears to be Palestinian so you are probably right.

----------


## Oktober

I don't know if I'm quoting someone. I couldn't be arsed to read a 13 page long thread. So sorry

I'm a die hard Communist too. It took me a while to get rid of authoritarian stalinist/ maoist like communism with a cult of personality.
I believed that although countless people were harmed or killed in these brutal regimes, it worked. People were coherent and obedient, to most degrees.
Mostly out of fear, but still, society was kinda like an ant society but then with huge bureaucratic flaws.

Now I still like the Ideas of Marx and Lenin a lot, but I see things in other ways. In history things have mostly gone like this. If a peoples leader gives the people more certainty and safety(e.g.national healthcare, a government job, etc), there was less freedom. If a leader chooses more liberal practices, there's less certainty and poverty moreover. Sad part is that to a lot of people both things are pretty holy. I see communism as the 'nec plus ultra of' certainty and anarchism as the maximum of liberty.

If you combine both communism and anarchy, you're there. It's anarchocommunism. Still a revolutionary current. And as far as I know it focuses on a proletarian revolution followed not by the dictatorship of the proletariat but by dismantling nations and living in small communes that have tools of production as a collective owned tool. If that's not anarchocommunism than it's certainly the cause I fight for.

----------


## cmind

> I don't know if I'm quoting someone. I couldn't be arsed to read a 13 page long thread. So sorry
> 
> I'm a die hard Communist too. It took me a while to get rid of authoritarian stalinist/ maoist like communism with a cult of personality.
> I believed that although countless people were harmed or killed in these brutal regimes, it worked. People were coherent and obedient, to most degrees.
> Mostly out of fear, but still, society was kinda like an ant society but then with huge bureaucratic flaws.
> 
> Now I still like the Ideas of Marx and Lenin a lot, but I see things in other ways. In history things have mostly gone like this. If a peoples leader gives the people more certainty and safety(e.g.national healthcare, a government job, etc), there was less freedom. If a leader chooses more liberal practices, there's less certainty and poverty moreover. Sad part is that to a lot of people both things are pretty holy. I see communism as the 'nec plus ultra of' certainty and anarchism as the maximum of liberty.
> 
> If you combine both communism and anarchy, you're there. It's anarchocommunism. Still a revolutionary current. And as far as I know it focuses on a proletarian revolution followed not by the dictatorship of the proletariat but by dismantling nations and living in small communes that have tools of production as a collective owned tool. If that's not anarchocommunism than it's certainly the cause I fight for.



So help me understand this: you advocate the people revolting and taking control of the state and then...just letting go of that power? Wouldn't it make more sense for the people to simply avoid the state, starve the beast, and just live their lives in peace without any form of coercion?

----------


## Oktober

I don't feel that every form of power should be abolished. I believe in a more sovietlike system in which counsels of people vote for what to do with productive goods etc. These counsels consist of the people of the commune picked randomly and then relieved by all the other members of the commune in a random order. This way all the inhabitants have power to some degree. For very important and urgent business there will have to be held referenda or a 2/3rd majority of votes in the counsel. This system probably still has a lot of flaws, but I think the final adjustments are to be done during the revolution itself.

As for people simply shunning their government instead of revolting against it. I think that would be wonderful and charming, but that's even less realistic then a revolution. There will always be civilians who cooperate with the government or who have special interests there. Plus the fact that I don't think there's one government willing to give up it's power to the masses even if it were for their own good. I think revolutionary action is the only option. But both Ghandi and Lenin were revolutionary, there's 2 ways of not participating in a system. You can overthrow it or not take part in it, like cmind says. Nevertheless,with both ways results aren't guaranteed.

----------


## cmind

> I don't feel that every form of power should be abolished.



Right. Just what I thought. You just want more power for yourself.

----------


## Oktober

> Right. Just what I thought. You just want more power for yourself.



Why such a brutal ad hominem?
No I don't want the power just for myself. I'm not a an extremist in that degree. I despise Oligarchies.
I think I made it pretty clear how I feel power should be divided.

----------


## Xei

I find your ideas concerning too, though I trust you're not in it for the power. The thing is that you're concerned about individuals having unlimited power without realising that the same dangers exist if you give the public unlimited power. What's to stop them voting out of a collective self-interest? Forming groups and voting out of favouritism? Groups of lazy dependants voting to force skilled people to work 14 hour shifts, and take all of the produce? Or voting to oppress a racial minority?

----------


## cmind

> I despise Oligarchies.



Yet you advocate councils who decide the distribution of all of society's capital. I don't think oligarchy means what you think it means...

----------


## Oktober

An oligarchy is a system where few people are in power of a great majority. Such a council would technically be one because not everyone can be in the council at the same time. But at the same time, The communes aren't the size of Nevada either, so it's not that they have very much power, especially when the system changes council members every set period. The opposite of an oligarchy, I think, is a direct democracy. Which isn't a bad idea either. But ancient Greece is so far the only case that had a direct democracy with a lot of flaws.
I'm not blind for the flaws of councils. It has, I think the same flaws as the Roman consulship. that is, that personal political ambition and lust for power, which is often the same, still exist.

As for the abuse of the council system, I think heavy abuse is impossible because of the big majority and referenda needed to vote for important issues. I hadn't thought about ethnical minorities, probably because the utopian society I have in mind is of course not racist. But again I think the ever changing council members don't exclude people at all.
Sadly, laziness and selfishness can make a lot of intercommunal differences brought to hand by selfishness, laziness and greed. These are the flaws of mankind and cannot disappear without cruel cleansings or sortlike monstrosities.

----------


## Xei

Of course heavy abuse is possible. It's in the interest of the bottom 75% with respects to skills to force the top 25% to break their backs working for 'the greater good', and the vote would pass.

I think your system completely fails to work with actual humans rather than the idealised version of man you admit to working with. These facts of reality are sad but true; we have to try to come up with systems that deal with them.

----------


## cmind

> These are the flaws of mankind and cannot disappear without cruel cleansings or sortlike monstrosities.



Yep, sounds like the typical communist to me.

----------


## Oktober

> Yep, sounds like the typical communist to me.



Indeed, sad part is that most of those typical communists who 'cleanse' mankind of impurities actually make the situation for the population a couple of times worse.
There is no possible way you can pardon that. Yet, for me, there isn't a way to pardon the war in Iraq, the financial crisis {my country is virtually bankrupt}, world hunger, the support of totalitarian regimes by the West, etc.

'Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism it's just the opposite.' JK Calbraith.

----------


## cmind

> Indeed, sad part is that most of those typical communists who 'cleanse' mankind of impurities actually make the situation for the population a couple of times worse.
> There is no possible way you can pardon that. Yet, for me, there isn't a way to pardon the war in Iraq, the financial crisis {my country is virtually bankrupt}, world hunger, the support of totalitarian regimes by the West, etc.
> 
> 'Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism it's just the opposite.' JK Calbraith.



Excuse me, but what the fuck does war, fiat currency, world hunger, and totalitarianism have to do with free market capitalism? Those are pretty big departures from the free market...

----------


## DrunkenArse

> Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism it's just the opposite.' JK Calbraith.



Pure gold.

----------


## Oktober

> Excuse me, but what the fuck does war, fiat currency, world hunger, and totalitarianism have to do with free market capitalism? Those are pretty big departures from the free market...



Well the war in Iraq, as far as I know, is a way to secure important pipelines running through the country. The USSR did something alike in Afghanistan in the eighties. In a Utopian communist society there is no currency at all. World hunger exists because we, the world{who is virtually all capitalist orientated} turn a blind eye towards it because we're greedy bastards.[Don't take it personal, I don't think you're like that.] 

You're right that this hasn't much to do with free market capitalism. Spying on your own population and imprisoning and exterminating them has as much to do with communism. I just try to make clear that I know the approaches of communism have failed on an epic scale, the same has happened under capitalism. Although it's pretty idiotic of me to speak of under capitalism or communism, because, as it is stated before, none of these currents are a way to run a country. They're economical.

----------


## cmind

What you're saying is neither new, nor correct.

&#x202a;Milton Friedman - Socialism vs. Capitalism&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube

----------


## juroara

Communism = democracy. If there is no democracy there is no communism because the greater good for all has already been compromised. Only a democratic society that dictates itself can decide what communism means. Society does not mean an entire country, especially for a country as big as the US. We have vastly different cultures here in the US that could never agree on what communism means to them. A democratic communism could only work on a much smaller scale, and in a larger context it can only work when those smaller democratic communist communities retain sovereignty while interacting cooperatively with each other.

----------


## Xei

So China is a democracy and America is communist; this is very interesting news, thanks!

----------


## cmind

Actually, democracy is a subset of communism. If resources can be voted on, then they aren't privately owned, are they?

----------


## Laughing Man

> Actually, democracy is a subset of communism. If resources can be voted on, then they aren't privately owned, are they?



Democracy is just a school of thought concerning governance. Communism is more of a economic outlook or model.

----------


## cmind

> Democracy is just a school of thought concerning governance. Communism is more of a economic outlook or model.



Ok, but still you must admit that a democracy can't exist in a non-communist situation.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Ok, but still you must admit that a democracy can't exist in a non-communist situation.



Sure it can. Social democracy. Greek society was democratic specifically in Athens and they weren't communist. Fascism. Constitutional Republics. There is a lot of places where democracy can exist and it not be communistic. In fact you can have communism be non-democratic since the state is suppose to wither away with the advent of communism according to Karl Marx.

----------


## cmind

> Sure it can. Social democracy. Greek society was democratic specifically in Athens and they weren't communist. Fascism. Constitutional Republics. There is a lot of places where democracy can exist and it not be communistic. In fact you can have communism be non-democratic since the state is suppose to wither away with the advent of communism according to Karl Marx.



The idea of democracy is that things (ie. private property) can be voted on. This implies communal ownership of some sort, which is communism. Perhaps this video will make what I'm saying more clear:

&#x202a;fringeelements&#39;s Channel&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube

The whole video is worth watching, but 7:15 is the part about communism.

----------


## Xei

In a pure democracy maybe that makes sense. :/

Most democracies are not pure, they have constitutions which guarantee property rights etc.

----------


## cmind

> In a pure democracy maybe that makes sense. :/
> 
> Most democracies are not pure, they have constitutions which guarantee property rights etc.



Constitutions don't do anything in practice, though. Just look at the US. The original constitution clearly forbade personal income taxation, yet in 1913 they just "amended" it so now they can tax personal income. If the constitution was enforced by super powerful space aliens, then you'd have a point. But in reality, they're enforced by the same people who have the power to change them. 

I would LOVE to see you weasel your way out of this one.

----------


## Xei

Uhh why do you think I care about the U.S. constitution?

Are you denying the existence of countries with sets of rights that cannot be voted on (which was all I was asserting)? Okay.

----------


## cmind

> Uhh why do you think I care about the U.S. constitution?
> 
> Are you denying the existence of countries with sets of rights that cannot be voted on (which was all I was asserting)? Okay.



Give one example of a consitution that guarantees physical property rights and has effectively done so for over 100 years.

----------


## Oktober

> What you're saying is neither new, nor correct.



How can you deny the oily reasons for the iraqi war, the greediness of the human race and the fact that communism is an economical current more than a political ideology all in one post?
The video just says that capitalsm is less greedy than communism, which doesn't undermine my previous statements at all.

----------


## cmind

> How can you deny the oily reasons for the iraqi war, the greediness of the human race and the fact that communism is an economical current more than a political ideology all in one post?
> The video just says that capitalsm is less greedy than communism, which doesn't undermine my previous statements at all.



What does war have to do with capitalism? If you actually understood what capitalism was, you'd see that war is ANTI-CAPITALIST!

----------


## Oktober

> What does war have to do with capitalism? If you actually understood what capitalism was, you'd see that war is ANTI-CAPITALIST!



I'm not an economist, so please enlighten me with your insights.

----------


## cmind

> I'm not an economist, so please enlighten me with your insights.



If you're going to shut out everything I say, why should I expend the energy trying to convince you? If you lack the common sense to see that wholesale destruction is bad for generating wealth in a society, then you're beyond hope.

----------


## Oktober

Perhaps I am beyond hope. I just try to counter your 'counterarguments'. 
You just say my point of view is wrong. Without saying what is right, that just disturbs and annoys me. I've been wrong more than a couple of times in my life, but I don't think I'm wrong on this one: theoretically speaking a society between anarchism and communism is ideal. Because it offers civilians both security and safety as a lot of freedom.

As for the fringeelements video: The video says that we're not living in a democracy because we live in a representative democracy and a particracy. And that taxraisings shouldn't be in democracies because the income of your neighbor isn't partially yours to claim?
Does this mean you're not an advocate of democracy? In what do you believe then?

----------


## DrunkenArse

> If you lack the common sense to see that wholesale destruction is bad for generating wealth in a society, then you're beyond hope.



Except that wholesale destruction isn't bad for generating wealth in society? The vast majority of the wealth in the "developed world" stems from the wholesale destruction of cultures around the world. Think slavery, looting for gold, stealing land and the resources that comes with it, etc. Did you forget about that?

Furthermore, so long as the destruction is _over there_, then we have to build shit to get there, we have to build guns, we have to pay soldiers, we have to train soldier, etc. This circulates wealth through the economy. War is great economic activity and the only way that I can think that somebody would disagree with that statement is to specifically cherry-pick examples by disregarding the origin of our own wealth.

----------


## Laughing Man

> The idea of democracy is that things (ie. private property) can be voted on. This implies communal ownership of some sort, which is communism. Perhaps this video will make what I'm saying more clear:
> 
> &#x202a;fringeelements&#39;s Channel&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> 
> The whole video is worth watching, but 7:15 is the part about communism.



The idea of democracy is representation concerning political affairs. What those political affairs encompass is another issue.

----------


## Laughing Man

> I'm not an economist, so please enlighten me with your insights.



Well the system of capitalism is predicated upon the concept of voluntary exchange. That means that Party A voluntarily enters into an agreement with Party B without interference from a third party. Now there such ideas as "state-capitalism," "corporatism," and other terms which basically center on a partnership between business and government. That is what people mean when they say the "Military-Industrial Complex." It's the partnership of military producers/suppliers and governments. Anyways, with war comes the environment of embargoes and trade blockages towards the "enemy" country. So here we have a third party interfering with the voluntary transactions of Party A and Party B, something antithetical to capitalism. So in a sense, war is anti-capitalistic.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Furthermore, so long as the destruction is _over there_, then we have to build shit to get there, we have to build guns, we have to pay soldiers, we have to train soldier, etc. This circulates wealth through the economy. War is great economic activity and the only way that I can think that somebody would disagree with that statement is to specifically cherry-pick examples by disregarding the origin of our own wealth.



Well you're committing one of the most basic fallacies of economics. Namely the "Broken Window" fallacy. We build bombs to drop and explode, make bullets to expend, make gasoline for tanks to expend, artillery shells, missiles, flares, C4, grenades. The list goes on and this list is the "broken window" of the story. It's produced yet destroyed. It doesn't bring a net profit to society.

----------


## DrunkenArse

Pretty sure I'm not. The broken windows cause the circulation of wealth and its re-accumulation with large centers of power. Money doesn't do any good if it's sitting in a basement somewhere. Somebody gets paid to break a broken window. Then they go buy a burrito. Then the burrito stand pays an employee. Then the employee goes and gets beer. 

Also, my assertion is that the net profit to (our) society comes from stealing land and resources from other societies. Now they're poorer and we're richer.

----------


## cmind

> Pretty sure I'm not. The broken windows cause the circulation of wealth and its re-accumulation with large centers of power. Money doesn't do any good if it's sitting in a basement somewhere. Somebody gets paid to break a broken window. Then they go buy a burrito. Then the burrito stand pays an employee. Then the employee goes and gets beer.



Haha, you're priceless. Not only is this a broken window fallacy, but it's also the Scrooge McDuck fallacy.

The chimp in your avatar is appropriate.

----------


## Descensus

That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen; by Frederic Bastiat

Been blown out of the water for 161 years and people still advocate this sort of stuff. Shame.

cmind, you need to work on your public relation skills.

----------


## cmind

> cmind, you need to work on your public relation skills.



philosopherstoned is a push; he'll never be convinced by reason.

----------


## DrunkenArse

Cmind, I've never seen you bring reason to bear on an issue so you may not be the best to judge.

As far as the scrooge mcduck fallacy, I didn't commit it. From skimming the article you linked, I would have had to postulate that money _is_ sitting in a basement somewhere. I just said that it doesn't do any good if it is. Do you disagree?

As far as the broken window fallacy, I simply said that war causes a circulation of money in the economy for the agressors. Again, do you disagree?

What about my accusation that to claim that war doesn't create wealth, you need to cherry pick through history by discounting the source of wealth enjoyed by the 'developed world'. Any comeback? Or were you convinced by reason?

EDIT: Also, Blueline, I have a really hard time considering anything that an economist says to have blown anything else out of the water. They study The Magic Monkey That Lives At The Center Of The Universe And Has Perfect Knowledge And Always Makes Rational Decisions And Sweats Axe Body Spray And Exists In Isolation From Its Environment. This is not an interesting animal to study (even as a first order approximation) because it doesn't actually exist. Historians have much the same problem.

----------


## Descensus

> EDIT: Also, Blueline, I have a really hard time considering anything that an economist says to have blown anything else out of the water. They study The Magic Monkey That Lives At The Center Of The Universe And Has Perfect Knowledge And Always Makes Rational Decisions And Sweats Axe Body Spray And Exists In Isolation From Its Environment. This is not an interesting animal to study (even as a first order approximation) because it doesn't actually exist. Historians have much the same problem.



So have you read the essay? I can also suggest a book that takes Bastiat's basic message from his 1850 essay and applies it to various topics if you want.

----------


## cmind

> So have you read the essay? I can also suggest a book that takes Bastiat's basic message from his 1850 essay and applies it to various topics if you want.



He doesn't read conflicting points of view.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Pretty sure I'm not. The broken windows cause the circulation of wealth and its re-accumulation with large centers of power. Money doesn't do any good if it's sitting in a basement somewhere. Somebody gets paid to break a broken window. Then they go buy a burrito. Then the burrito stand pays an employee. Then the employee goes and gets beer. 
> 
> Also, my assertion is that the net profit to (our) society comes from stealing land and resources from other societies. Now they're poorer and we're richer.




It's actually in the wikipedia article I linked. While wikipedia is not a solid source for evidence, I don't think it is wrong in this case. I mean you could google Broken window + war and you will get more examples of what I am trying to show you. Money sitting in the basement certainly can be doing "good" if you analyze what a person's desires are. If a person desires to save their money until its purchasing power is higher then it is now then keeping it in a basement is a perfectly acceptable means. They could put it in their drawer, in a safe lock box, etc. 

When someone breaks a window, the owner has to pay to get it fixed. So they have to spend money to return it to its original condition instead of saving that money or spending it on a nice new luxury item. So it is not a net benefit to society if you have to expend money to return an article to a natural state. It's like taking two steps back and one step forward and thinking you're ahead. Do you see the point?

----------


## Laughing Man

> He doesn't read conflicting points of view.



He's one of the few people on this forum that actually listen to what people say and can formulate interesting arguments.

----------


## Oktober

If you store your money in the hypothetical basement in war time, doesn't devalue it over time?
In Dutch there's the saying: Money's gotta roll which implies that a healthy economy is an economy in which there is a constant circulation of money.
<I'm not an economist.>

Isn't it better to replace a broken window in wartime than to keep sitting on your wallet till your money has no value left? Would be my hypothetical question.

----------


## Laughing Man

> If you store your money in the hypothetical basement in war time, doesn't devalue it over time?



Well it depends on how the war is financed. If they are financed like they are today by inflating the money supply in order to acquire more goods/services then yes it would devalue over time. The value of money, its purchasing power, is greatly dependent upon its supply/demand but not exclusively that. 






> In Dutch there's the saying: Money's gotta roll which implies that a healthy economy is an economy in which there is a constant circulation of money.



Well if I had a dollar and gave you a dollar then you gave me back a dollar then I gave you back the dollar, is that building wealth? It's not the act of circulation that creates wealth and prosperity, it is the increase in the abundance of goods/services. 






> Isn't it better to replace a broken window in wartime than to keep sitting on your wallet till your money has no value left? Would be my hypothetical question.



It would really depend upon the personal preferences of the individual. They could value a fix window more then retaining their money. Or they could value withholding the inflated dollars until a deflationary period in which their dollars would go up in value. The decision to choose when to consume good/services is what is called "time preference." If someone has a short time preference they prefer to consume goods now rather then later. A person with a long time preference is opposite of that.

----------


## DrunkenArse

> He doesn't read conflicting points of view.



That's right. I read them to decide if I agree with them or not. If I don't agree with it, then I don't read it. If I do agree with it, then I go ahead and read it.  ::?: 

@Laughing Man and Blueline, I'll get back to this thread. Or maybe I'll start a new one to discuss the foundations of economics. I have a feeling that I'd loose this particular debate without addressing foundational concerns though so, in that sense, I concede the points. I'm still right though  :tongue2:

----------


## Laughing Man

> I'm still right though



Me too.

----------

