Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Definitely yes.

Technically yes.

Technically no.

Definitely no.

Uncertain.

Other.

Don't care.

[The Transcendent Tyrant]

Really good straw man Transcendent Tyrant. Doing nice.

I didn't see anything I strawmanned, really.

"Social welfare is dead with the rise of consumerism" was worse than anything I said.

[Phmcw]

Social w

Really good straw man Transcendent Tyrant. Doing nice.

I didn't see anything I strawmanned, really.

"Social warfare is dead with the rise of consumerism" was worse than anything I said.

Is it a typo, or what you read?

Because yes, You are really not getting my point.

[The Transcendent Tyrant]

Is it a typo, or what you read?

Because yes, You are really not getting my point.

Rereading it as "warfare" makes a lot more sense, but it still boils down to exactly the same thing.

People with priviledges will attempt to keep others away from those priviledges so they remain special and important. Class warfare is still alive and well in England with things such as the removal of mansion taxes (taxes to prevent people from owning ridiculously expensive houses and not paying a proportionate amount of taxes), the removal of certain types of social welfare ("Why do I need social welfare? I'm rich!", the most obvious of which is the removal of child benefits which are a NECESSITY to many people in England for them to have children) etc etc.

Tell me that there isn't a trend for right-wing politicians to try to remove any of these elements and play down elements of the richer parts of the country. I'll know you're lying then.

[Eugenitor]

child benefits which are a NECESSITY to many people in England for them to have children

Then they shouldn't be having children, now should they?

[Scood]

the only way socialism/ communism would work is wwith robots. there we go all of our problems are solved.

[mainiac]

child benefits which are a NECESSITY to many people in England for them to have children

Then they shouldn't be having children, now should they?

Yes, how dare they have children and make it so that somebody is going to actually be around to take care of their country in the future.  They should be patriotic and be a burden on somebody else's children in their old age.

[joss]

I'm quite embarrased actually, my last post was written basically right after watching a really emotional documentary (that "Soviet Story"), which kinda blurred my reasoning. My emotions got the best of me. Now as I've cooled down and reviewed posts replying to mine, I see what an idiot I must sound like. It's just that the subject of communism kinda gets to me and has different associations to it in my brain, living in a post-soviet country, hearing all these stories about soviet order and the living conditions of my parents and grandparents.
So hereby I take back my false logic ridden claims, apologise and resign from this discussion.

[Fayrik]

While you can argue the point of it we should be consumerist or communist, social equality pales to the economic limits we're growing ever closer to. If, we haven't hit them already that is.

This point is quite simple, and I'd be supprised if anyone could actually pull any evidence to deny it. (If anyone could, that'd be great, btw!)
There simply are not enough resources. At all.

The world population is growing, the amount of available food is going down - and the price of what is there is going up of it's own accord.
And, unfortunately, other resources are following suite.

So, as much as I love the idea of social equality, I hate to say it, but, in this case, it's not going to be a cure-all.

[Jackrabbit]

What an utterly boring ultimate goal. I expected transcendence or something, flapjacks maybe, I dunno.

[Zrk2]

Communism is the antithesis of the "ultimate goal of humanity" as you phrase it.

When humans first developed they lived in a communist society with the good of the tribe held to be paramount to the good of any one member. The whole of human development has been freeing the individual from the despotic rule of the shamans and witch doctors and their modern day equivalents. Communism seeks to remove these rights in order to force every individual to be enslaved to some "common good" which can never be logically defined or definitively demonstrated, thereby giving the dictator total control over the entire nation.

If one claims a dictatorship is needed to institute communism that should be the first red flag (no pun intended) that something is wrong. If something requires a dictatorship to exist it must by anathema to the rights of man, because it requires those right to be made subservient to the whims of the dictator in order to be instituted.

Therefore I suggest that the utopia, because that is actually what we are arguing about here, would be a truly Libertarian state.

[fqllve]

Communism is the antithesis of the "ultimate goal of humanity" as you phrase it.

When humans first developed they lived in a communist society with the good of the tribe held to be paramount to the good of any one member. The whole of human development has been freeing the individual from the despotic rule of the shamans and witch doctors and their modern day equivalents.

Really? Because firstly, we don't really know that much about hunter-gather society, but from what we do know it sure seems a whole hell of a lot less despotic than say, the Assyrians. And really, I'd say the individual is even more bound to society now than ever. Pretty much every piece of land on the planet is claimed by some country. If it isn't it's too inhospitable to settle or it's under some government's protection.

Communism seeks to remove these rights in order to force every individual to be enslaved to some "common good" which can never be logically defined or definitively demonstrated, thereby giving the dictator total control over the entire nation.

Not all communism is based on dictatorships. In fact, I think that Marxism is based on a direct democracy. Don't quote me on that, but I know for sure it is specifically against dictators. Besides that, I have never heard a communist or a communist-sympathizer talk about the "common good." That's something you hear from socialists. Communists talk about the exploitation of the working class and minority rule by a class of unskilled, unproductive, ultra-rich.

If one claims a dictatorship is needed to institute communism that should be the first red flag (no pun intended) that something is wrong. If something requires a dictatorship to exist it must by anathema to the rights of man, because it requires those right to be made subservient to the whims of the dictator in order to be instituted.

Can't disagree with you there. Anathema is an awesome word too. So is subservient. If you had thrown acquiesce in there it would have been a trifecta of my favorite words.

Therefore I suggest that the utopia, because that is actually what we are arguing about here, would be a truly Libertarian state.

And I suggest that utopias are inherently bad and thankfully only exist in fantasy.

Bad shit leads to progress, a utopia is stagnant and boring.

[Soadreqm]

There simply are not enough resources. At all.

I'm not really concerned about this. As long as we have energy to toss around, other resources can be recycled. Unlike most things that are wrong with the world, this one is a technological problem rather than a social one, and therefore most likely solvable. Are we going to master fusion before we run out of uranium? Entirely possible. Certainly easier than eliminating world hunger.

[mainiac]

The world population is growing, the amount of available food is going down - and the price of what is there is going up of it's own accord.
And, unfortunately, other resources are following suite.

Besides the growing population, this statement has not been true since the early 19th century.  Available food and natural resources per capita are at all time highs.  Certain resources like oil may run out, but we are always discovering abundant new resources to take up the slack if we are willing to make the transition.

There simply are not enough resources. At all.

I'm not really concerned about this. As long as we have energy to toss around, other resources can be recycled. Unlike most things that are wrong with the world, this one is a technological problem rather than a social one, and therefore most likely solvable. Are we going to master fusion before we run out of uranium? Entirely possible. Certainly easier than eliminating world hunger.

Considering that we make enough food to feed the entire world and feed it to cows whereas we don't have a clue how to do fusion, I think you have this backwards.

[Cheese]

Nanotechnology + Solar panels = Abundant energy.

[Fayrik]

I'm not really concerned about this. As long as we have energy to toss around, other resources can be recycled. Unlike most things that are wrong with the world, this one is a technological problem rather than a social one, and therefore most likely solvable. Are we going to master fusion before we run out of uranium? Entirely possible. Certainly easier than eliminating world hunger.

I am, somewhat. Food isn't really recycable.. Unless.. Is it?
Engergy isn't the only thing we need, y'know.