Thread: Re-writing Communism

Originally Posted by Spartiate

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.

Originally Posted by spockman

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.

Originally Posted by GMoney

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.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

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?

Originally Posted by GMoney

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

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?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

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.

Originally Posted by GMoney

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.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

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.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

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.

Originally Posted by GMoney

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.)

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..

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.

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.

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

Still a communist.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

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?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

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.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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.