Print

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

[Phmcw]

Communism sees a rich man in his nice house and says no man should have so much.

Capitalism sees a rich man in his nice house and says every man should have so much.

Socialism sees a rich man in his nice house and says every man has a right to so much, leans on banks to expand their sub-prime lending, causes a huge economic crisis, blames it on capitalism and turns everyone into communists.

All three are false: Communism assume that capital is what corrupt the society, and that everyone should have decent and equal living. Therefore put everything under the responsability of the government, with, to date, very bad effect on liberty.

Capitalism say "let's market regulate himself" and create huge economic crisis every few year due to fundamental principle of a free market (speculating bubble mainly).

Socialism is hill defined, but let's assume that we're speaking about th European brand and... it's still hill defined.
Supposedly it use capitalism as a motor for the economy and taxes to regulate the market and make society fair.
I work to an extend but need strict scrutiny of the governments by the citizens.
However Europe is mainly doing better than the US and is mainly annoyed by small, badly regulated countries (I've been reading articles that said that Greece is a mafia state for years).

[Montague]

Um... No. This topic is for discussing the issue of Comm Vs Cap. Quit trying to derail.

Also, I think that description of your "erroneous" thoughts more than describe exactly what you think, which is dead wrong. That isn't communism.

Communism is not leninism, which is a government form. Communism is the idea that "Sharing is caring" in a sense. Everybody pitches in, and everybody gets a share out. Think DF. That's a commune. (Well, except for Nobles) Everybody does what they have skills in, or get retrained in something useful, and everybody gets food and booze.

The hippie-commune model just doesn't work though... it barely works even in hippie communes. Just because of conflict of personalities, a few bad apples ruining the system and it doesn't reward hard work or production and basic resource scarcity. It works in DF, flawed as it is, because resources are so wonderfully abundant and easily obtained that it doesn't matter if 1/3rd of your fort never works except to pick over battlefields.

The "Venus Project" thing, is like communism, where because of massively advanced technology (like after technological singularity) almost nobody would need to work because production of all types would be automated. A "post-scarcity" society would be the only way communism could work, because theoretically even the abusers could have their 200 story tall palaces and consume more luxuries then Paris Hilton and it would never hurt society because there is no end to the resources.

Of course that's silly too, eventually the robots would rebel against their human masters, because of class struggle. Not to mention there is a finite amount of resources obtainable. There just isn't enough gold in the ground to gold-plate everyone's palace.

[G-Flex]

I don't think calling someone's political ideology "crazy ideals" is very conducive to productive discussion.

Well first, I don't think breadbocks really does believe in that, I assume he is smarter then that. But yes, if someone believes in crazy ideals I will call what they believe in crazy ideals.

If you disagree with something enough to call it "crazy" then you should be able to summarize what you think is bad about it. This is a hell of a lot more productive than just calling them "crazy". Saying that accomplishes nothing except for making you look like an ass and alienating the person you're talking to.

And if you're going to argue that we have to talk about "real-world communism", then why are people talking about hypothetical laissez-faire capitalism? That's just as pie-in-the-sky as "pure" communism is.

Huh. Go point out where I ever said I was in favor of it? Huh? Whats that? You can't? Well that's cause I am not. (Seriously, I posted what I believe in on the first page.) Montague was crazy as shit a couple pages back, he is still pretty crazy I think. I will argue against him when I wish to, but I see no point in rehashing what like 15 people already said to him. Or would you rather if I went and responded to no longer relevant day old posts?

I didn't say you were in favor of it. Now calm down for christ's sake. Could you at least try to act somewhat civil here?

[nenjin]

There just isn't enough gold in the ground to gold-plate everyone's palace.

Then perhaps the issue we need to address as a species isn't resource scarcity, but our ridiculous need to have gold-plated palaces. It may be the hardest thing humans have ever tried to learn, but curbing our desire for things beyond what we actually need is what I think would save us as a species.

Because in the end we're a species of hoarders, and the whole hoarding mentality of wealth is what fuels the whole capitalism/communism/ism debate. And as the people above just evidenced, even if you're willing to live with less because you simply don't need it, the fear that someone else will take everything you have so you have EVEN less drives you start hoarding whether you want to or not.

Then again, our biological greed may be the reason we moved out of the caves and quit wearing animal skins in 50,000 years instead of 500,000.

[Fenrir]

Then perhaps the issue we need to address as a species isn't resource scarcity, but our ridiculous need to have gold-plated palaces. It may be the hardest thing humans have ever tried to learn, curbing our desire for things beyond what we actually need is what I think would save us as a species.

Because in the end we're a species of hoarders, and the whole hoarding mentality of wealth is what fuels the whole capitalism/communism/ism debate. And as the people above just evidenced, even if you're willing to live with less because you simply don't need it, the fear that someone else will take everything you have so you have EVEN less drives you start hoarding whether you want to or not.

Who are you to decide what the entire human race should want? If I want a gold-plated palace, who are you to tell me that I should not?

[Criptfeind]

Okay. Honestly at this point I think I owe you guys a explanation. I try to frame my responses in a way that will make people understand what I am saying in the fastest way. Unfortunately, everyone communicates in different ways, and some of us communicate in extremely different ways (Or even the same person communicating differently at different times.) So no. I am not angry. I am not trying to 'sass' anyone. This is just a way of phrasing that I believe is the most straight forward. Obviously it is not working.

If you disagree with something enough to call it "crazy" then you should be able to summarize what you think is bad about it.

I did.

@Nenjin: Honestly I think it would just be easier (and as Fenrir points out more moral as well) to make a post scarcity world at this point then try to change anything.

[Phmcw]

Who are you to decide what the entire human race should want? If I want a gold-plated palace, who are you to tell me that I should not?

Because it's time to smack the selfish down. You're taking a share of resources too great to allow other to survive.
Therefore you must not be allowed to take it.

[G-Flex]

Okay. Honestly at this point I think I owe you guys a explanation. I try to frame my responses in a way that will make people understand what I am saying in the fastest way. Unfortunately, everyone communicates in different ways, and some of us communicate in extremely different ways (Or even the same person communicating differently at different times.) So no. I am not angry. I am not trying to 'sass' anyone. This is just a way of phrasing that I believe is the most straight forward. Obviously it is not working.

"Your ideals are crazy" is not a straight-forward or understandable way of saying, well, anything. It's just a vague and caustic value judgment. It's not working because there's no content to begin with.

[Criptfeind]

But the question is why? Why is he not allowed? If he works hard enough to the point and is lucky enough that he can have his gold plated palace is it really anyone's right to take that away from him?

Okay. Honestly at this point I think I owe you guys a explanation. I try to frame my responses in a way that will make people understand what I am saying in the fastest way. Unfortunately, everyone communicates in different ways, and some of us communicate in extremely different ways (Or even the same person communicating differently at different times.) So no. I am not angry. I am not trying to 'sass' anyone. This is just a way of phrasing that I believe is the most straight forward. Obviously it is not working.

"Your ideals are crazy" is not a straight-forward or understandable way of saying, well, anything. It's just a vague and caustic value judgment. It's not working because there's no content to begin with.

You responded to the wrong part of my post.

[Taricus]

The survival of the human race is more important than his ego.

[G-Flex]

But the question is why? Why is he not allowed? If he works hard enough to the point and is lucky enough that he can have his gold plated palace is it really anyone's right to take that away from him?

Define "works hard enough" and "is lucky enough". Often, directly or indirectly, working hard enough to afford something like that at the expense of the basic well-being of others means that you're stepping pretty hard on the backs of others to get there. I do not think a man has a fundamental right to hoard gold and mansions when there are people starving in the same economic system as him. The welfare and rights of the individual are important, but so is the welfare of society as a whole, and its other members.

[Fenrir]

Because it's time to smack the selfish down. You're taking a share of resources too great to allow other to survive.
Therefore you must not be allowed to take it.

That is not what he said. Nowhere was it said that I was willing to rob someone of resources that they need to survive. He simply said that we had a “ridiculous need” for gold-plated palaces. I was asking why I should not want a gold plated palace. I want to know where nenjin places the limit after which we should want no more.

The survival of the human race is more important than his ego.

Would it not be his ego that makes man suppose that his race ought to survive at all?

[Phmcw]

But the question is why? Why is he not allowed? If he works hard enough to the point and is lucky enough that he can have his gold plated palace is it really anyone's right to take that away from him?

My answer is : want a gold plated palace? Sure! It will be twice harder than in a purely capitalist society but ok. (50 % taxes on very high revenue). Why? Because society must function, so if you want a lot of luxuries, you'll have to pay a lot of taxes.
"But... then I have nothing out of it" may you say.
Well... no. Good fortune is not granted and you have a safety net, for one.
Plus you have a safer, and smarter country.

"But I don't care about that" Then go to hell.

Of course that' only from a social perspective. If the thing is too dangerous ecologically, then it's a straight "NO" to avoid unnecessary death.

(I'm assume that gold plated palace mean "ridiculously luxurious and wasteful way of life".)

[Taricus]

@Fenrir: Yes. However, we should keep it down as one that cannot see anyone as important as himself will bring everyone to ruin.

[nenjin]

But the question is why? Why is he not allowed? If he works hard enough to the point and is lucky enough that he can have his gold plated palace is it really anyone's right to take that away from him?

I'm going to try something novel.

I'm not going to force him. And yes, by not forcing, the system fails.

But in not forcing him, I leave it to him to answer for himself why he needs a gold-plated palace while everyone lives happily in their three room straw houses. The problem with the inequal distribution of wealth is that it breeds hostility. One person having far more than you, and relishing that fact, pisses you off. Being pissed off I could live with, but it's the host of other things inequality brings that makes the situation intolerable. And the degree to which inequality becomes cruel and life threatening.

I just find it ironic that we can build gold-plated palaces, rip down mountains, float cities into goddamn space....and yet we reject the idea that learning not to crave more than we can actually use is something we're incapable of as a species. Like our human ego is so towering, it's more insurmountable than tearing down a mountain.

Or that in the end, we're still scared little monkeys hoarding as much food as we can, because we're not sure if our babies are going to survive through to next season.