Other than taking some poster by the ear and sticking their nose into soviet area countries while telling them "bad poster, not communist, not communist, bad poster, bad" there is nothing else that can be done to try to make it clear that there have never been any real communist countries.
Frazzled wrote: So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?
When proponents can not claim - even slightly - any entity that did well under their regime, maybe there's a problem???
We cannot say that communism has never worked, because there has never been communism.
Once you quit making the silly argument of "well, dictatorships/socialists/fascists/etc who claimed they were founded on communist principles never worked, so even though they were not communist it clearly means that communism could never work".
That's like me saying "I saw a German Shepard run against a wall once, which clearly means that Dachshunds are stupid."
Notice that most of these are dictatorships and therefor not communist to any stretch. They just say they are communst to help them get away with what they are doing, this gives people who are communist for the sake of the people a bad name as people stereotype the "bad" communists with the "good" communists.
Who are the "good" communists???
The reason i put "good" in inverted commas is because i couldn't think of another word.
good=communists for the people
bad=become a dictator and say it is communism.
As i said i put "good" because i couldn't think of a better way to put it, nothing behind it.
I'll restate his question. Show us a "good" communist in real life that had power.
Non as there has been no communist countries.
How many times has this been said on this thread alone.
Frazzled wrote: So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?
When proponents can not claim - even slightly - any entity that did well under their regime, maybe there's a problem???
We cannot say that communism has never worked, because there has never been communism.
Once you quit making the silly argument of "well, dictatorships/socialists/fascists/etc who claimed they were founded on communist principles never worked, so even though they were not communist it clearly means that communism could never work".
That's like me saying "I saw a German Shepard run against a wall once, which clearly means that Dachshunds are stupid."
USSR has state run, centralized means of prorduction, and limited pay scales. How is that not an attempt at communism?
Warsaw Pact: same.
You can't exclude EVERY SINGLE entity that called itself communist because disctatorship was involved, because it, itself is a Marxian requirement.
Its weird you never see people defending Fascism as an economic system. Its always communists. Why?
Notice that most of these are dictatorships and therefor not communist to any stretch. They just say they are communst to help them get away with what they are doing, this gives people who are communist for the sake of the people a bad name as people stereotype the "bad" communists with the "good" communists.
Who are the "good" communists???
The reason i put "good" in inverted commas is because i couldn't think of another word.
good=communists for the people
bad=become a dictator and say it is communism.
As i said i put "good" because i couldn't think of a better way to put it, nothing behind it.
I'll restate his question. Show us a "good" communist in real life that had power.
Non as there has been no communist countries.
How many times has this been said on this thread alone.
Frazzled wrote: So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?
When proponents can not claim - even slightly - any entity that did well under their regime, maybe there's a problem???
We cannot say that communism has never worked, because there has never been communism.
Once you quit making the silly argument of "well, dictatorships/socialists/fascists/etc who claimed they were founded on communist principles never worked, so even though they were not communist it clearly means that communism could never work".
That's like me saying "I saw a German Shepard run against a wall once, which clearly means that Dachshunds are stupid."
USSR has state run, centralized means of prorduction, and limited pay scales. How is that not an attempt at communism?
Warsaw Pact: same.
You can't exclude EVERY SINGLE entity that called itself communist because disctatorship was involved, because it, itself is a Marxian requirement.
Its weird you never see people defending Fascism as an economic system. Its always communists. Why?
German Shepards clearly have fur and a tail, how are they not Dachshunds?
Frazzled wrote: So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?
When proponents can not claim - even slightly - any entity that did well under their regime, maybe there's a problem???
We cannot say that communism has never worked, because there has never been communism.
Once you quit making the silly argument of "well, dictatorships/socialists/fascists/etc who claimed they were founded on communist principles never worked, so even though they were not communist it clearly means that communism could never work".
That's like me saying "I saw a German Shepard run against a wall once, which clearly means that Dachshunds are stupid."
Then those who advocate it need to learn that it'll never happen... 'tis like it's Utopia. We all want it... but it just isn't humanly possible.
And other poster said that the principle of Communism is commonly used by dictators to as a tool to keep the population inline.
Frazzled wrote: So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?
When proponents can not claim - even slightly - any entity that did well under their regime, maybe there's a problem???
We cannot say that communism has never worked, because there has never been communism.
Once you quit making the silly argument of "well, dictatorships/socialists/fascists/etc who claimed they were founded on communist principles never worked, so even though they were not communist it clearly means that communism could never work".
That's like me saying "I saw a German Shepard run against a wall once, which clearly means that Dachshunds are stupid."
USSR has state run, centralized means of prorduction, and limited pay scales. How is that not an attempt at communism?
Warsaw Pact: same.
You can't exclude EVERY SINGLE entity that called itself communist because disctatorship was involved, because it, itself is a Marxian requirement.
Its weird you never see people defending Fascism as an economic system. Its always communists. Why?
German Shepards clearly have fur and a tail, how are they not Dachshunds?
They're not mean enough. Lb for Lb a dachshund would murderize a german Shepherd.
But thats not relevant to the conversation. Define communism.
Frazzled wrote: So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?
When proponents can not claim - even slightly - any entity that did well under their regime, maybe there's a problem???
We cannot say that communism has never worked, because there has never been communism.
Once you quit making the silly argument of "well, dictatorships/socialists/fascists/etc who claimed they were founded on communist principles never worked, so even though they were not communist it clearly means that communism could never work".
That's like me saying "I saw a German Shepard run against a wall once, which clearly means that Dachshunds are stupid."
USSR has state run, centralized means of prorduction, and limited pay scales. How is that not an attempt at communism?
Warsaw Pact: same.
You can't exclude EVERY SINGLE entity that called itself communist because disctatorship was involved, because it, itself is a Marxian requirement.
Its weird you never see people defending Fascism as an economic system. Its always communists. Why?
Notice that most of these are dictatorships and therefor not communist to any stretch. They just say they are communst to help them get away with what they are doing, this gives people who are communist for the sake of the people a bad name as people stereotype the "bad" communists with the "good" communists.
Who are the "good" communists???
The reason i put "good" in inverted commas is because i couldn't think of another word.
good=communists for the people
bad=become a dictator and say it is communism.
As i said i put "good" because i couldn't think of a better way to put it, nothing behind it.
I'll restate his question. Show us a "good" communist in real life that had power.
Non as there has been no communist countries.
How many times has this been said on this thread alone.
Ok flapjack, please define communism.
Without resorting to a dictionary i would define communism as
"a country ran by a governmet of the far-left that has the support and backing of it's people and has the ability to maintain itself and it's people to a standard that is equal for all."
Now i will ask you 2 questions (without resorting to dictionary)
Without resorting to a dictionary i would define communism as
"a country ran by a governmet of the far-left that has the support and backing of it's people and has the ability to maintain itself and it's people to a standard that is equal for all."
Now i will ask you 2 questions (without resorting to dictionary)
1. Define "fair"
2.Define "communism"
What you so eloquently described is humanly impossible... because there's not enough resources to do just that.
Well under that definition pretty much all the countries already cited were communist.
Fair: ew, you're good. I'll use the standard everyone cites now for minimum wage. Enough to raise a family one. Now mind you, thats what I define as fair for you. But as always some animals are more equal than others. Fair for me 85% of GDP.
communism: centralized control of the means of production including labor and physical commodities.
Without resorting to a dictionary i would define communism as
"a country ran by a governmet of the far-left that has the support and backing of it's people and has the ability to maintain itself and it's people to a standard that is equal for all."
Now i will ask you 2 questions (without resorting to dictionary)
1. Define "fair"
2.Define "communism"
What you so eloquently described is humanly impossible... because there's not enough resources to do just that.
Then how are people existing today if there's not enough resources, surely we'd all be starving and/or clothesless
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Well under that definition pretty much all the countries already cited were communist.
Fair: ew, you're good. I'll use the standard everyone cites now for minimum wage. Enough to raise a family one. Now mind you, thats what I define as fair for you. But as always some animals are more equal than others. Fair for me 85% of GDP.
communism: centralized control of the means of production including labor and physical commodities.
1.Pretty good answer
2.Your definition isn't "for the people" it's "to the people, wheather they like it or not"
As for my definition all those countries are dictatorships and thus are not "for the people".
So again, in the real world, you're expressing the view that communism can't exist. Therefore, as a model its, as Mr. Rogers would say, a mountain sized pile of unworkable gak and pee.
Frazzled wrote: So again, in the real world, you're expressing the view that communism can't exist. Therefore, as a model its, as Mr. Rogers would say, a mountain sized pile of unworkable gak and pee.
So far in the real world, however as i have already posted if people tried it would be possible.
Communism is not impossible, just highly fragile, it needs 100% dedication.
2 Things
1.I'm not trying to start a revolution here, it is just my humble opinion
Frazzled wrote: So again, in the real world, you're expressing the view that communism can't exist. Therefore, as a model its, as Mr. Rogers would say, a mountain sized pile of unworkable gak and pee.
So far in the real world, however as i have already posted if people tried it would be possible.
Communism is not impossible, just highly fragile, it needs 100% dedication.
2 Things
1.I'm not trying to start a revolution here, it is just my humble opinion
2.HURRAY its my 200th post.
1. Congrats on 200th post.
2. If it requires 100% dedication, then as a model its horrifically flawed and unworkable outside of Heaven/Paradise/The Great Kennel and isn't actually worthy of discussion outside of those contexts.
Um, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, China, East-Germany, etc.
All of which had governments and state control, two things which are not part of communism in any way.
It's probably wrong to say that communism has never been tried, it is quite likely that something similar was in some small communities in the days before recorded history, but it has never been documented. So any claim that communism has failed is like saying that our manned mission to Alpha Centuri has failed.
Um, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, China, East-Germany, etc.
All of which had governments and state control, two things which are not part of communism in any way.
It's probably wrong to say that communism has never been tried, it is quite likely that something similar was in some small communities in the days before recorded history, but it has never been documented. So any claim that communism has failed is like saying that our manned mission to Alpha Centuri has failed.
What I mean is they attempted to apply Marxist theories to their countries but in the end they failed to become the classless and stateless society that Marx envisioned.
What I mean is they attempted to apply Marxist theories to their countries but in the end they failed to become the classless and stateless society that Marx envisioned.
That is true, and makes more sense than saying "people tried communism. failed" which implies they actually tried communism and it didn't work, rather than they tried to get to communism and never managed it . The hard part of communism will be the getting there, hence why I think it necessary for us to first create an almost Godlike AI to handle the transition.
What I mean is they attempted to apply Marxist theories to their countries but in the end they failed to become the classless and stateless society that Marx envisioned.
That is true, and makes more sense than saying "people tried communism. failed" which implies they actually tried communism and it didn't work, rather than they tried to get to communism and never managed it . The hard part of communism will be the getting there, hence why I think it necessary for us to first create an almost Godlike AI to handle the transition.
However, when I last read Marx (a really long time, mind) he basically flat out stated that the Revolution would happen, where the workers would get all pissy about their conditions, rise up, install a leader/government and eventually that government would work towards its own downfall because now each person is taken care of by all the other people, and the whole country no longer needs a government....
When the USSR tried to do exactly that, they completely and utterly failed at dissolving the government, which to me points to Communism never working on this planet; as it would turn out there are things that the USSR folks tried to suppress which only drove those activities underground (like religion, and Levi's jeans) where they thrived even better than they had previously, and some people would argue that some things, such as religion are essential to human survival in large group settings (I'm using the term religion fairly loosely, as I don't think this necessarily applies to theism, I feel that there are those who can/have replaced those feelings with scientific, sporting, or other pursuits)
What I mean is they attempted to apply Marxist theories to their countries but in the end they failed to become the classless and stateless society that Marx envisioned.
That is true, and makes more sense than saying "people tried communism. failed" which implies they actually tried communism and it didn't work, rather than they tried to get to communism and never managed it . The hard part of communism will be the getting there, hence why I think it necessary for us to first create an almost Godlike AI to handle the transition.
However, when I last read Marx (a really long time, mind) he basically flat out stated that the Revolution would happen, where the workers would get all pissy about their conditions, rise up, install a leader/government and eventually that government would work towards its own downfall because now each person is taken care of by all the other people, and the whole country no longer needs a government....
When the USSR tried to do exactly that, they completely and utterly failed at dissolving the government, which to me points to Communism never working on this planet; as it would turn out there are things that the USSR folks tried to suppress which only drove those activities underground (like religion, and Levi's jeans) where they thrived even better than they had previously, and some people would argue that some things, such as religion are essential to human survival in large group settings (I'm using the term religion fairly loosely, as I don't think this necessarily applies to theism, I feel that there are those who can/have replaced those feelings with scientific, sporting, or other pursuits)
I was going to say something similar but I think I'll save myself the effort and quote you instead.
It's not that they're the same it's USSR's failed attempt at communism that's the concern, because if so many countries failed to apply Marxist concepts maybe it wasn't such a good ideology in the first place.
Frazzled wrote: So evidently, communism only exists in someone's head?
Communist society is an idea that only exists in someone's head. Communism is the belief that the best way to establish a communist society is by the revolutionary action of the working class and the progressive elimination of private ownership.
Oh, I get it now. Communism is basically time travel. Awesome in theory, impossible in reality, and and thought about too much by guys who need more sun.
What people are arguing:
"Communism was attempted in the past, but it failed, therefore it will always fail."
What I am arguing:
"Communism has failed in the past because certain things were wrong e.g. having a corrupt government. As soon as we can sort these things out communism could work."
People who think they're arguing against my point haven't actually supplied a valid reason yet. Until then, I'm going to quite happily tell people that in the future communism could work, and I'd like to see a reason why it shouldn't.
Seaward wrote: Oh, I get it now. Communism is basically time travel. Awesome in theory, impossible in reality, and and thought about too much by guys who need more sun.
What people are arguing:
"Communism was attempted in the past, but it failed, therefore it will always fail."
What I am arguing:
"Communism has failed in the past because certain things were wrong e.g. having a corrupt government. As soon as we can sort these things out communism could work."
People who think they're arguing against my point haven't actually supplied a valid reason yet. Until then, I'm going to quite happily tell people that in the future communism could work, and I'd like to see a reason why it shouldn't.
When will the basic human nature of wanting more be overcome? I think it could easily be argued that it's hard coded into us. An evolutionary tool we gained to help us survive.
As long as we have that, Communism will never work. So, Communism will never work.
What people are arguing:
"Communism was attempted in the past, but it failed, therefore it will always fail."
What I am arguing:
"Communism has failed in the past because certain things were wrong e.g. having a corrupt government. As soon as we can sort these things out communism could work."
People who think they're arguing against my point haven't actually supplied a valid reason yet. Until then, I'm going to quite happily tell people that in the future communism could work, and I'd like to see a reason why it shouldn't.
Sorry pal. If a bunch of countries attempted it, and failed, then you say well they weren't pure commies, then thats a leading indicator your theory is absolute horshit BECAUSE IT CAN'T WORK IN THE REAL WORLD.
Your theory is crap anywhere outside of heaven or an ant colony. Come on back to reality now hothouse flower boy.
Frazzled wrote: Sorry pal. If a bunch of countries attempted it, and failed, then you say well they weren't pure commies, then thats a leading indicator your theory is absolute gak BECAUSE IT CAN'T WORK IN THE REAL WORLD.
Your theory is gak anywhere outside of heaven or an ant colony. Come on back to reality now hothouse flower boy.
Uh... no.
Firstly, I recommend you start using logic rather than simply flaming posts because they're pro-communist.
Secondly, I've pointed out the failings in the past attempts at communism and said, "If we tried communism without these problems, it would work." What you've done is stuck your fingers in your ears and said "I don't like it so it's not true."
On the other hand, please keep flaming. I'm sending them all down to RedS8n, and I believe it's making his life a whole load easier, what with the shortage of oil that we're going to endure in less than a century's time
djones520 wrote: When will the basic human nature of wanting more be overcome? I think it could easily be argued that it's hard coded into us. An evolutionary tool we gained to help us survive.
As long as we have that, Communism will never work. So, Communism will never work.
I can't say that it will ever happen, and certainly not when. If it does ever happen, then great, communism here we come! And surely slavery (getting someone else to do the work for us) is hard-wired into human nature? Perhaps less so, but eating meat certainly is and there's a reasonable amount of vegetarians out there.
As for communism not working if we want stuff, that's probably true. It's possible we could educate people enough that they change their thoughts to "wanting loads for the whole of humanity" rather than "wanting loads for me and my family", perhaps through simply spreading out what they see as their family and friends until it becomes natural to see everyone as a friend? I certainly don't know. I'm not in a position to predict the future. But it's possible that communism will be viable in the future (even if it is, as you believe, unlikely).
Secondly, I've pointed out the failings in the past attempts at communism and said, "If we tried communism without these problems, it would work." What you've done is stuck your fingers in your ears and said "I don't like it so it's not true."
Sorry, when your argument is "communism would work fine if it weren't for all the people" that means your theory doesn't work. Saying we're not logical for pointing this out is...interesting.
Yes, please send everything to Reddy. I still owe him a trip to Oasis when he comes to Austin, and maybe this will spur him on to show up (before it gets hot). I'll take him to a shooting competition and turn him into a right good queso eating Texan in no time. Then the circle will be complete.
Frazzled wrote: Sorry, when your argument is "communism would work fine if it weren't for all the people" that means your theory doesn't work. Saying we're not logical for pointing this out is...interesting.
Yes, please send everything to Reddy. I still owe him a trip to Oasis when he comes to Austin, and maybe this will spur him on to show up (before it gets hot). I'll take him to a shooting competition and turn him into a right good queso eating Texan in no time. Then the circle will be complete.
I'm not arguing that it would be fine if it weren't for all the people! I've written about how to make it work, by having a government that's extremely difficult to corrupt or keep power for long, whether it be some kind of democracy or having a computer in charge.
I've also written about how it could work once we don't need any more technological advancements, or if human nature changes a little as it has done in the past.
I am putting forwards multiple ways by which we could get round the problems of communism, which for some reason you seem not to have seen.
I'm not arguing that it would be fine if it weren't for all the people! I've written about how to make it work, by having a government that's extremely difficult to corrupt or keep power for long, whether it be some kind of democracy or having a computer in charge.
I've also written about how it could work once we don't need any more technological advancements, or if human nature changes a little as it has done in the past.
I am putting forwards multiple ways by which we could get round the problems of communism, which for some reason you seem not to have seen.
Because they are stupid. If unicorns land and take everyone to lala land (located 37 miles East of Oklahoma) that might work too. But in the real world you’re not going to have a government that’s difficult to corrupt. Again, anything made up of something incredibly flawed is going to itself be flawed. If your theory requires a perfect government then your theory lacks merit.
Having a computer in charge? 1. Why do you think that would make things better? 2. A sentient computer might have a mind all its own. I bet this might be the subject for an excellent movie.
I've also written about how it could work once we don't need any more technological advancements, or if human nature changes a little as it has done in the past.
Again any theory that requires the end of science, or changing human nature itself, is a theory utterly without merit.
Frazzled wrote: Sorry, when your argument is "communism would work fine if it weren't for all the people" that means your theory doesn't work. Saying we're not logical for pointing this out is...interesting.
Yes, please send everything to Reddy. I still owe him a trip to Oasis when he comes to Austin, and maybe this will spur him on to show up (before it gets hot). I'll take him to a shooting competition and turn him into a right good queso eating Texan in no time. Then the circle will be complete.
I'm not arguing that it would be fine if it weren't for all the people! I've written about how to make it work, by having a government that's extremely difficult to corrupt or keep power for long, whether it be some kind of democracy or having a computer in charge.
I've also written about how it could work once we don't need any more technological advancements, or if human nature changes a little as it has done in the past.
I am putting forwards multiple ways by which we could get round the problems of communism, which for some reason you seem not to have seen.
Your suggestion sounded suspiciously like "education camps" to teach people how to accept it.
Frazzled wrote:Because they are stupid. If unicorns land and take everyone to lala land (located 37 miles East of Oklahoma) that might work too. But in the real world you’re not going to have a government that’s difficult to corrupt. Again, anything made up of something incredibly flawed is going to itself be flawed. If your theory requires a perfect government then your theory lacks merit.
Having a computer in charge? 1. Why do you think that would make things better? 2. A sentient computer might have a mind all its own. I bet this might be the subject for an excellent movie.
Spoiler:
So you're saying "we've never done it before, so it'll never happen." I, on the other hand, will point you towards the fact that some governments are incredibly close to incorrupt (e.g. Denmark, Finland, New Zealand...) and it's only improving over the long-term. If you're right and what's happened in the past will continue to happen, then soon we'll have countries that are negatively corrupt! And who says that a computer needs sentience to be able to function well? Unless we allowed it to program itself (not a good idea), then greed would have to be programmed in, which it wouldn't be (so long as we knew we could trust the programmers). Problems? Of course, but it's still a possibility.
I've also written about how it could work once we don't need any more technological advancements, or if human nature changes a little as it has done in the past.
Again any theory that requires the end of science, or changing human nature itself, is a theory utterly without merit.
Why? I'm extremely interested in science, and I'm looking to study physics at university, but I don't see why we need to continue advancing. As soon as we're happy with where we are and we're in a stable position, why should we advance? There'd be no need for it!
Frazzled wrote: Sorry, when your argument is "communism would work fine if it weren't for all the people" that means your theory doesn't work. Saying we're not logical for pointing this out is...interesting.
Yes, please send everything to Reddy. I still owe him a trip to Oasis when he comes to Austin, and maybe this will spur him on to show up (before it gets hot). I'll take him to a shooting competition and turn him into a right good queso eating Texan in no time. Then the circle will be complete.
I'm not arguing that it would be fine if it weren't for all the people! I've written about how to make it work, by having a government that's extremely difficult to corrupt or keep power for long, whether it be some kind of democracy or having a computer in charge.
I've also written about how it could work once we don't need any more technological advancements, or if human nature changes a little as it has done in the past.
I am putting forwards multiple ways by which we could get round the problems of communism, which for some reason you seem not to have seen.
Your suggestion sounded suspiciously like "education camps" to teach people how to accept it.
I wonder why people would be resistant to that...
I never said I wanted "education camps," I didn't intend to suggest it and I certainly don't think we should have "education camps". In fact I explained how such a society could come about on its own, and about how it wouldn't be needed if we also didn't need technological advancements. It's something to be thought about if a communist society is ever created, but I don't think it's particularly relevant to the current dialogue.
I agree that it's impossible to get rid of greed or laziness as far as we know without tampering with genetics. However, it's certainly possible to make it so culturally unacceptable to be greedy that people won't be, just like people nowadays pretend that they don't want a slave to do everything for them, or that they don't want to go to a gladiator pit to see humans being chopped into bear food.
p_gray99 wrote: I agree that it's impossible to get rid of greed or laziness as far as we know without tampering with genetics. However, it's certainly possible to make it so culturally unacceptable to be greedy that people won't be, just like people nowadays pretend that they don't want a slave to do everything for them, or that they don't want to go to a gladiator pit to see humans being chopped into bear food.
No its not possible. Its human nature. The only way to make it culturally unacceptable is that whole gulag thing. Of course the people creating the gulag will themselves be the ones more equal than others. Oh look thats what happened in the USSR already...
Sorry pal. If a bunch of countries attempted it, and failed, then you say well they weren't pure commies, then thats a leading indicator your theory is absolute horshit BECAUSE IT CAN'T WORK IN THE REAL WORLD.
Sorry chap, but it's never been tried anywhere. If you say you tried foie gras the assumption is that you had some on your plate, not that you were fattening up a duck but it ran away.
To get rid of greed or lazyness you have to change humanity on a genetic level.
Greed is not a genetic trait, rather it is something we are socialised to. If we have a genetic trait toward anything regarding this, it is fairness and cooperation.
You clearly don't have children nor ever been around them. Humans are greedy the moment they can walk, grab something, and declare it theirs.
Its not just humans. Dogs are the same way. Alpha dog gets the best. Everyone else gets the rest.
As for saying its not been tried, but you close your eyes to all the countries that did try that. Wishing it away screaming no true Scotsman doesn't make it go away.
Frazzled wrote: You clearly don't have children nor ever been around them. Humans are greedy the moment they can walk, grab something, and declare it theirs.
Its not just humans. Dogs are the same way. Alpha dog gets the best. Everyone else gets the rest.
As for saying its not been tried, but you close your eyes to all the countries that did try that. Wishing it away screaming no true Scotsman doesn't make it go away.
I really don't think citing dog packs supports your argument when they are a form of cooperative society. Humans may well be greedy by the time they can walk but that is a year or so in, more than enough time to learn behaviours, hell they are often learning complex behaviours like language by that point.
Which countries have tried communism? Here's a clue, its not Russia or China (totalitarian socialists).
See, I can post youtube videos about monkeys as well.... however this one shows that there are round about ways to show greed in just about any animal.
Frazzled wrote: You clearly don't have children nor ever been around them. Humans are greedy the moment they can walk, grab something, and declare it theirs.
Its not just humans. Dogs are the same way. Alpha dog gets the best. Everyone else gets the rest.
As for saying its not been tried, but you close your eyes to all the countries that did try that. Wishing it away screaming no true Scotsman doesn't make it go away.
I really don't think citing dog packs supports your argument when they are a form of cooperative society. Humans may well be greedy by the time they can walk but that is a year or so in, more than enough time to learn behaviours, hell they are often learning complex behaviours like language by that point.
Which countries have tried communism? Here's a clue, its not Russia or China (totalitarian socialists).
Which pack predator doesn't operate like that?
Don't forget, when you get down to it, that is all we are. Pack predators.
See, I can post youtube videos about monkeys as well.... however this one shows that there are round about ways to show greed in just about any animal.
So you post something from the same study. What is your point? Because all that study shows is how monkeys have an intrinsic sense of fairness.
Cooperation and reciprocal altruism is common to pretty much every animal on the planet, so maybe in creating a society built on competitiveness it might be us that is in the wrong.
Frazzled wrote: You clearly don't have children nor ever been around them. Humans are greedy the moment they can walk, grab something, and declare it theirs.
Its not just humans. Dogs are the same way. Alpha dog gets the best. Everyone else gets the rest.
As for saying its not been tried, but you close your eyes to all the countries that did try that. Wishing it away screaming no true Scotsman doesn't make it go away.
I really don't think citing dog packs supports your argument when they are a form of cooperative society. Humans may well be greedy by the time they can walk but that is a year or so in, more than enough time to learn behaviours, hell they are often learning complex behaviours like language by that point.
Which countries have tried communism? Here's a clue, its not Russia or China (totalitarian socialists).
Let me guess, you haven't left high school yet as well?
Children will have a concept of possession long before they start to learn to communicate, only someone that has never been around young children doesn't understand this.
I'll repeat it again for the cheap seats, almost 30% of the countries in the world had some form of communist government during the 80's, they all failed... Trying to pretend that this isn't true by yelling "no true Scotsman" at the top of your lungs doesn't make it any less a fact. Just because something isn't 100% equal to the ideals of Marx, doesn't mean that it wasn't a form of communism.
Communism, like capitalism, in their purest forms are utopias that will never be accomplished, that doesn't mean that we can't say that we all live in capitalist societies, because even though we've modified the capitalist theory to suit our needs, the roots to our system are still capitalist much as the roots to all those failed governments were still communist and as such they can be called communist countries.
See, I can post youtube videos about monkeys as well.... however this one shows that there are round about ways to show greed in just about any animal.
So you post something from the same study. What is your point? Because all that study shows is how monkeys have an intrinsic sense of fairness.
Cooperation and reciprocal altruism is common to pretty much every animal on the planet, so maybe in creating a society built on competitiveness it might be us that is in the wrong.
Don't forget, when you get down to it, that is all we are. Pack predators.
Like what? Like dogs and cooperatively, or like us and competitively?
Really?
You don't know that EVERY single pack animal species in the entire planet will have one or more pack leaders that will have the "lions" share of everything, from food to breeding rights?
See, I can post youtube videos about monkeys as well.... however this one shows that there are round about ways to show greed in just about any animal.
NOOOOOOOOOO NOT THE MONKEYS!!! WON"T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!?!?!??!
See, I can post youtube videos about monkeys as well.... however this one shows that there are round about ways to show greed in just about any animal.
So you post something from the same study. What is your point? Because all that study shows is how monkeys have an intrinsic sense of fairness.
Cooperation and reciprocal altruism is common to pretty much every animal on the planet, so maybe in creating a society built on competitiveness it might be us that is in the wrong.
Don't forget, when you get down to it, that is all we are. Pack predators.
Like what? Like dogs and cooperatively, or like us and competitively?
Dogs are cooperative only against larger prey, and only then until the prey is down. Otherwise they are competitive, just like wolves, hyenas, and lions.
Really?
You don't know that EVERY single pack animal species in the entire planet will have one or more pack leaders that will have the "lions" share of everything, from food to breeding rights?
You don't call that a competitive system?
Indeed, thats where the phrase "top dog" comes from.
Let me guess, you haven't left high school yet as well?
Is there really any need for that? Still, I will answer, yes I left high school many years ago and am currently engaged in a degree in politics and social science.
Children will have a concept of possession long before they start to learn to communicate, only someone that has never been around young children doesn't understand this.
Citation needed.
I'll repeat it again for the cheap seats, almost 30% of the countries in the world had some form of communist government during the 80's, they all failed... Trying to pretend that this isn't true by yelling "no true Scotsman" at the top of your lungs doesn't make it any less a fact. Just because something isn't 100% equal to the ideals of Marx, doesn't mean that it wasn't a form of communism.
I will repeat again, there has never been a single instance of communism in the modern world. "Communist government" is an oxymoron. It's not a 'no true scotsman' claim when there weren't any scots. Show me a single case of communism in the 20th Century.
Is there really any need for that? Still, I will answer, yes I left high school many years ago and am currently engaged in a degree in politics and social science.
Don’t plan on working for a an honest living then eh?
Children will have a concept of possession long before they start to learn to communicate, only someone that has never been around young children doesn't understand this.
Citation needed.
Parenthood
I'll repeat it again for the cheap seats, almost 30% of the countries in the world had some form of communist government during the 80's, they all failed... Trying to pretend that this isn't true by yelling "no true Scotsman" at the top of your lungs doesn't make it any less a fact. Just because something isn't 100% equal to the ideals of Marx, doesn't mean that it wasn't a form of communism.
I will repeat again, there has never been a single instance of communism in the modern world. "Communist government" is an oxymoron. It's not a 'no true scotsman' claim when there weren't any scots. Show me a single case of communism in the 20th Century.
All of them. Your belief that there is no government in communism again beggars belief. But if we go with your point then you have to admit that, it can’t happen, because it can’t be made to happen.
I mean you're arguing communism only exists when there is no government, but every system has govenrment. Even something "run by computers" is still government. If your theoretical assumption requires something that by the laws of physics can't exist, then by its nature its flawed.
Children will have a concept of possession long before they start to learn to communicate, only someone that has never been around young children doesn't understand this.
Citation needed.
Really? So you've never been around a baby before...
Well, here you go then:
In relation to
possession, infants by 2 months manifest the sense of their own agency onto things. They
come to develop the sense that they possess the perceptual effects of their own embodied
actions. They show awareness of an ownership of the effect of their own actions. At this
2nd Level, the feeling of agency over people and things dominates the child’s sense of
possession
I will repeat again, there has never been a single instance of communism in the modern world. "Communist government" is an oxymoron. It's not a 'no true scotsman' claim when there weren't any scots. Show me a single case of communism in the 20th Century.
That is the textbook definition of a "no true scotsman".
Is there really any need for that? Still, I will answer, yes I left high school many years ago and am currently engaged in a degree in politics and social science.
Don’t plan on working for a an honest living then eh?
God no, far easier to corruptly syphon off the fruit of others labours.
I mean you're arguing communism only exists when there is no government, but every system has govenrment. Even something "run by computers" is still government. If your theoretical assumption requires something that by the laws of physics can't exist, then by its nature its flawed.
It's not faster than light travel, it's collective ownership, which is really quite possible. Alaska for instance has a scheme whereby it's citizens are paid a dividend for the oil extracted, just that one scheme is far more communist than anything done by the likes of Stalin or Mao.
PhantomViper wrote:
In relation to possession, infants by 2 months manifest the sense of their own agency onto things. They come to develop the sense that they possess the perceptual effects of their own embodied actions. They show awareness of an ownership of the effect of their own actions. At this 2nd Level, the feeling of agency over people and things dominates the child’s sense of possession
What's interesting is how that works with societies which had no concept of ownership, such as the native americans.
That is the textbook definition of a "no true scotsman".
No it's not, if I'd made a claim such as "socialism has worked" and someone had shown that Russia failed, then I'd posited that Russia wasn't true socialism then fair enough. But I'm not making any claim of things working, I am claiming things have never been tried. See the difference?
You cannot claim that the people of Russia had collective ownership of the resources and work there, because they demonstrably didn't, the ownership was held by the state, which is textbook socialism.
governments of many countries in Africa from developing. All it would take would be one action from the US government to stop millions of deaths due to starvation. And the reason you don't want to slow the interest is, you guessed it, CAPITALISM!!!
We lost 18 in Somalia trying to keep people from using food as a weapon. Where the were you lover boy?
Where the feth were you, Frazzled? You sure as gak weren't in one of the Blackhawks. Better men than you lost or risked their lives in that conflict, so how about not claiming credit for their sacrifice, eh?
Just a thought.
I'm not the one claiming the US needs to do more Hondo. Keep up kemosabe.
p_gray99 wrote:I'm not talking about which is least likely to cause corruption, I'm talking about which system would exist in an ideal world, which would almost certainly be communism or very close to this, as it causes greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Millions of people killed by Stalin, thrown in Gulags, killed by Mao, etc. etc. just called, they'd love to have a nice chat with you about how happy they were with their communist systems.
strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
THERE HAS BEEN TO COMMUNIST COUNTRY'S EVER.
it's *two
Vietnam, USSR, China, Democratic People's republic of Congo, DPRK (N. Korea)
yep... seems like more than 2 countries on that list that were/are definitely communists.
As many have pointed out, with the human condition being what it is, and probably always will be, communism has never, and will never work. Another way it would work, is if we were all implanted with a micro chip at birth, and received all our education, and directions from the Hive.. but that wouldn't end well now would it?
My apologies i ment to put NO communist countries.
Vietnam-dictatorshipo
USSR-almost but Stalin came along
China-trying but failing (possibly socialist)
DMRC-dictatorship
N Korea-fascist
(i have since updated my comment)
Hungary
Poland
Romania
East Germany
Yugoslavia
Cambodia
Laos
Nicaragua
Cuba
Ah... all these countries are Socialist, not Communist.
It's not faster than light travel, it's collective ownership, which is really quite possible. Alaska for instance has a scheme whereby it's citizens are paid a dividend for the oil extracted, just that one scheme is far more communist than anything done by the likes of Stalin or Mao.
Really? That’s more communist than the government owning all the means of production? Wait, that can’t be communist because there’s government involved.
It's not faster than light travel, it's collective ownership, which is really quite possible. Alaska for instance has a scheme whereby it's citizens are paid a dividend for the oil extracted, just that one scheme is far more communist than anything done by the likes of Stalin or Mao.
Really? That’s more communist than the government owning all the means of production? Wait, that can’t be communist because there’s government involved.
Yes, putting the ownership of the natural resources in the hands of the citizens is more communist than the state owning the means of production, which is socialist. It's not actual communism, but it is closer than to it than state ownership is.
Frazzled wrote: (Heavy snippage ensues to reduce the text pyramid)
Ok flapjack, please define communism.
Vulcan wrote: A COMMUNIST nation is one where the people as a whole - NOT the government - control the means of production. Imagine, say, a country where every person has shares in every company, and (unlike in America) are kept fully informed by the company as to what they are doing so that when the people vote their shares it MEANS something.
It's not faster than light travel, it's collective ownership, which is really quite possible. Alaska for instance has a scheme whereby it's citizens are paid a dividend for the oil extracted, just that one scheme is far more communist than anything done by the likes of Stalin or Mao.
Really? That’s more communist than the government owning all the means of production? Wait, that can’t be communist because there’s government involved.
Yes, putting the ownership of the natural resources in the hands of the citizens is more communist than the state owning the means of production, which is socialist. It's not actual communism, but it is closer than to it than state ownership is.
Wait what? If thats the case there have been lots of communist countries. You've effectively said all those evil running dog capitalists are communist states. I guess communism does work.
However, you've chosen the wrong example. The State of Alaska owns the oil NOT the citizens.
Frazzled wrote: (Heavy snippage ensues to reduce the text pyramid)
Ok flapjack, please define communism.
Vulcan wrote: A COMMUNIST nation is one where the people as a whole - NOT the government - control the means of production. Imagine, say, a country where every person has shares in every company, and (unlike in America) are kept fully informed by the company as to what they are doing so that when the people vote their shares it MEANS something.
Do try paying attention.
Under Marx a true communist society wouldn't have either a government or even a state, so according to Marx a Communist Country is an oxymoron as well.
In relation to
possession, infants by 2 months manifest the sense of their own agency onto things. They
come to develop the sense that they possess the perceptual effects of their own embodied
actions. They show awareness of an ownership of the effect of their own actions. At this
2nd Level, the feeling of agency over people and things dominates the child’s sense of
possession
Frazzled wrote: (Heavy snippage ensues to reduce the text pyramid)
Ok flapjack, please define communism.
Vulcan wrote: A COMMUNIST nation is one where the people as a whole - NOT the government - control the means of production. Imagine, say, a country where every person has shares in every company, and (unlike in America) are kept fully informed by the company as to what they are doing so that when the people vote their shares it MEANS something.
Do try paying attention.
East Germany and the USSR tried that when they were breaking up (giving shares to their workers). It didn't work.
It did however help create the current Oligarch system that RUssia has.
As you note, try to pay attention.
Wait what? If thats the case there have been lots of communist countries. You've effectively said all those evil running dog capitalists are communist states. I guess communism does work.
However, you've chosen the wrong example. The State of Alaska owns the oil NOT the citizens.
Where are these communist countries then?
Also...
The Alaska state constitution claims common heritage rights of ownership of oil and other minerals for the people of the state as a whole.
The Alaska state constitution claims common heritage rights of ownership of oil and other minerals for the people of the state as a whole.
Thats great but it doesn't mean gak. The government of Alaska owns the rights anc an do what it wants with it. Thats your definition of communism now?
I wish you guys would get specific. You've now claimed pretty much all governments as communistic, but then say there can't be governments, which can't exist.
I wish you guys would get specific. You've now claimed pretty much all governments as communistic, but then say there can't be governments, which can't exist.
How so? I have claimed that there are some instances of communistic schemes within capitalist societies, not that Alaska is communist for paying it citizens for the privilege of extracting their oil.
I wish you guys would get specific. You've now claimed pretty much all governments as communistic, but then say there can't be governments, which can't exist.
How so? I have claimed that there are some instances of communistic schemes within capitalist societies, not that Alaska is communist for paying it citizens for the privilege of extracting their oil.
No you've pretty much denied any communist schemes where there is a govenrment involved. That rules out your Alaska example.
If it were a communist regime why would they even have money?
I wish you guys would get specific. You've now claimed pretty much all governments as communistic, but then say there can't be governments, which can't exist.
How so? I have claimed that there are some instances of communistic schemes within capitalist societies, not that Alaska is communist for paying it citizens for the privilege of extracting their oil.
No you've pretty much denied any communist schemes where there is a govenrment involved. That rules out your Alaska example.
If it were a communist regime why would they even have money?
Not at all, I denied any communist countries that have a government. Communistic schemes within capitalist countries are quite different from communist countries.
I wish you guys would get specific. You've now claimed pretty much all governments as communistic, but then say there can't be governments, which can't exist.
How so? I have claimed that there are some instances of communistic schemes within capitalist societies, not that Alaska is communist for paying it citizens for the privilege of extracting their oil.
No you've pretty much denied any communist schemes where there is a govenrment involved. That rules out your Alaska example.
If it were a communist regime why would they even have money?
Not at all, I denied any communist countries that have a government. Communistic schemes within capitalist countries are quite different from communist countries.
Not using your criteria that everything must be in order. Sorry.
Besides thats not communist. Thats not "each according to his need."
You can't call "no true scotsmen" at a group of americans just because they're all human though. There's some similarities, but it's just absurd to call them the same thing.
Yes, children have a strong sense of possession. However, they also have a sense of fairness, and giving someone in America more than someone in Africa for the same amount of work isn't exactly fair, whereas communism is.
What's interesting is how that works with societies which had no concept of ownership, such as the native americans.
Citation needed.
Well, for example any convents in existance have no (or extremely little) concept of ownership, yet have perfectly pleasant lives (if you enjoy all that religious stuff). In fact, wasn't much of the bible about giving things away and, arguably, having as un-capitalist a life as possible?
Not using your criteria that everything must be in order. Sorry.
Besides thats not communist. Thats not "each according to his need."
What criteria? Where did I set out criteria for communist schemes in capitalist countries? My criteria for communist countries is that there is collective ownership of all resources and the means of production, no country has met that criteria in modern times.
Oil dividends in Alaska are equal, everyone gets the same share.
Also communistic schemes such as bike ownership in Amsterdam are each according to his need. When you need one, you use it.
The human race has a history of always wanting things, but the human race also has a history of there not being enough things for everyone to have all the things they want. As soon as we get to a stage where if you want something then you can almost certainly afford it, people will suddenly become far less worried about possession simply because there's no threat, and you can't show off all your possessions to those poorer than yourself.
There's a saying "you have to be rich to be a socialist," and I'm not sure it's always true but there is a hint of truth behind it. As soon as you don't need absolutely everything you can get your hands on just to survive, there's suddenly far less incentive to own things, and people will become far happier in sharing.
Not using your criteria that everything must be in order. Sorry.
Besides thats not communist. Thats not "each according to his need."
What criteria? Where did I set out criteria for communist schemes in capitalist countries? My criteria for communist countries is that there is collective ownership of all resources and the means of production, no country has met that criteria in modern times.
Oil dividends in Alaska are equal, everyone gets the same share.
Also communistic schemes such as bike ownership in Amsterdam are each according to his need. When you need one, you use it.
- The oil is owned by the state. Thats exactly the same as California, Mexico, and the USSR. There's not difference.
-bikes are owned by the state.
-USSR all natural resources were owned by the state.
-North Korea all natural resources are owned by the state.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
p_gray99 wrote: The human race has a history of always wanting things, but the human race also has a history of there not being enough things for everyone to have all the things they want. As soon as we get to a stage where if you want something then you can almost certainly afford it, people will suddenly become far less worried about possession simply because there's no threat, and you can't show off all your possessions to those poorer than yourself.
As soon as we reach that stage? Any form of government works at that point.
p_gray99 wrote: The human race has a history of always wanting things, but the human race also has a history of there not being enough things for everyone to have all the things they want. As soon as we get to a stage where if you want something then you can almost certainly afford it, people will suddenly become far less worried about possession simply because there's no threat, and you can't show off all your possessions to those poorer than yourself.
As soon as we reach that stage? Any form of government works at that point.
Yes, but as soon as we get to that point it's no longer about what works and more about what's fairest, which is communism. Which is pretty much what I've been trying to say all along...
It's possible it could work before then, but no-one can predict what will happen in the future any degree of accuracy.
- The oil is owned by the state. Thats exactly the same as California, Mexico, and the USSR. There's not difference.
-bikes are owned by the state.
-USSR all natural resources were owned by the state.
-North Korea all natural resources are owned by the state.
There is a massive difference, as I have said numerous times now, between a communist society and a communistic scheme within another society. Those schemes are not communist, but are communist-like in their intent and implementation. Do you honestly not see the difference between a small scheme and an entire society?
The problem with communism isn't so much to do with human nature but more to do with creating a system that lacks competition that is essential for innovation, you know what everyone should just read sebster's posts in this thread as it should have been over by then.
Yes, children have a strong sense of possession. However, they also have a sense of fairness.
if they are socialized to have that sense of fairness. It is not inherent to them. I know kids that have developed socipathic and abusive behaviours because parents were retards and absolutely refused to correct the childs behavior, but only have chats with them at the end of the day. The kids are absolute nut-cases, and woe to the world, because this new parenting model is catching on...... the next generation WILL have a sense of fairness, true, but one that is skewed and slanted where anyone does anything that doesn't align to their interests is "unfair".
Cheesecat wrote: The problem with communism isn't so much to do with human nature but more to do with creating a system that lacks competition that is essential for innovation, you know what everyone should just read sebster's posts in this thread as it should have been over by then.
The assumption that competition is better for innovation than cooperation is not something I agree with.
“Cooperation—not competition—underpins innovation. To spur creativity, and to encourage people to come up with original ideas, you need to use the lure of the carrot, not fear of the stick. Cooperation is the architect of creativity throughout evolution, from cells to multicellular creatures to anthills to villages to cities. Without cooperation there can be neither construction nor complexity in evolution”
I find it very difficult to believe that the Manhattan Project was something born of "cooperation"... Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were mighty big sticks that drove plenty of innovation throughout the war.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I find it very difficult to believe that the Manhattan Project was something born of "cooperation"... Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were mighty big sticks that drove plenty of innovation throughout the war.
Besides if you look at these socialist countries you can see that there economies were in bad shape and were releasing sub par products and I have to imagine it has something to do with a a lack of a competitive market that capitalism allows.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I find it very difficult to believe that the Manhattan Project was something born of "cooperation"... Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were mighty big sticks that drove plenty of innovation throughout the war.
I find it very difficult to believe that building weapons of mass destruction should be a yardstick for human achievement.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I find it very difficult to believe that the Manhattan Project was something born of "cooperation"... Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were mighty big sticks that drove plenty of innovation throughout the war.
I find it very difficult to believe that building weapons of mass destruction should be a yardstick for human achievement.
However, if you look at all the technology that stemmed from that one single project?? We can draw direct, or near direct links from that project to damn near everything NASA has done, most of the personal electronics industry, alternate forms of power to coal (hydro-electric was already being done, but nuclear is the safer option all things considered)
Yes, the initial results (the two bombs) are really nothing to be proud of (even though the large bulk of all inventions started in a military context... let's face it, we're bloody brilliant at finding new ways to off each other in large numbers), but the follow on effects, inventions and technologies that would simply not exist if it werent for that project.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I find it very difficult to believe that the Manhattan Project was something born of "cooperation"... Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were mighty big sticks that drove plenty of innovation throughout the war.
I find it very difficult to believe that building weapons of mass destruction should be a yardstick for human achievement.
However, if you look at all the technology that stemmed from that one single project?? We can draw direct, or near direct links from that project to damn near everything NASA has done, most of the personal electronics industry, alternate forms of power to coal (hydro-electric was already being done, but nuclear is the safer option all things considered)
Yes, the initial results (the two bombs) are really nothing to be proud of (even though the large bulk of all inventions started in a military context... let's face it, we're bloody brilliant at finding new ways to off each other in large numbers), but the follow on effects, inventions and technologies that would simply not exist if it werent for that project.
I agree with everything said here except for "the follow on effects, inventions and technologies that would simply not exist if it werent for that project." Which is something we would never know but it's probably not true, we would have got them later, but we would have got them. Also there was cooperation involved in the Manhattan project with the involvement of the UK and Canada, but of course it was motivated by the arms race of the second world war.
The LHC is a pretty good model for how cooperation can work when it comes to scientific achievement, and hopefully that project will provide us with similar follow on effects.
I agree with everything said here except for "the follow on effects, inventions and technologies that would simply not exist if it werent for that project." Which is something we would never know but it's probably not true, we would have got them later, but we would have got them. Also there was cooperation involved in the Manhattan project with the involvement of the UK and Canada, but of course it was motivated by the arms race of the second world war.
The LHC is a pretty good model for how cooperation can work when it comes to scientific achievement, and hopefully that project will provide us with similar follow on effects.
I prefer to see the LHC as an american failure, in that the SSC was scrapped, and would have harnessed greater energy than that of the LHC.
as for the nuclear tech, I still can't get my mind around why in seven bloody hells nobody has gotten around to actually getting a functional thorium reactor up, and actually testing that sucker out. If that bastard works, then, I can't understand why we don't simply build some of them, and take a huge leap into solving our energy problems. This is something that makes sense in any given political system, and I can't quite see why this hasn't been done yet.
Cheesecat wrote: The problem with communism isn't so much to do with human nature but more to do with creating a system that lacks competition that is essential for innovation, you know what everyone should just read sebster's posts in this thread as it should have been over by then.
The assumption that competition is better for innovation than cooperation is not something I agree with.
I don't mean to offend you but I find it pretty hard to believe that you are studying politics at a university level and have these kinds of views and opinions.
It is pretty well documented that the vast majority of humanities radical advancements have come during times of war as a result of the direct competition involved especially during the modern age, from the previously mentioned advancements in nuclear energy, space exploration, aviation, communications and even modern computers, medicine and countless others!
I believe that there is no better indication of the fundamental flaws in the communist theories, that its proponents have to basically ignore or twist history, economy, politics and human psychology to arrive at an hypothetical future scenario where communism might have a chance to work... maybe.
poda_t wrote: as for the nuclear tech, I still can't get my mind around why in seven bloody hells nobody has gotten around to actually getting a functional thorium reactor up, and actually testing that sucker out. If that bastard works, then, I can't understand why we don't simply build some of them, and take a huge leap into solving our energy problems. This is something that makes sense in any given political system, and I can't quite see why this hasn't been done yet.
My own personal opinion is that there are certain political minds that wish to scare everyone into believing that nuclear power is the most evil, horrible way in which to produce energy, so they have blindly, or knowingly placed extreme rules and regulations on it thereby making any further progress very difficult to downright impossible.
p_gray99 wrote: Yes, children have a strong sense of possession. However, they also have a sense of fairness.
If they are socialized to have that sense of fairness. It is not inherent to them. I know kids that have developed socipathic and abusive behaviours because parents were retards and absolutely refused to correct the childs behavior, but only have chats with them at the end of the day. The kids are absolute nut-cases, and woe to the world, because this new parenting model is catching on...... the next generation WILL have a sense of fairness, true, but one that is skewed and slanted where anyone does anything that doesn't align to their interests is "unfair".
So you're saying that the idea of fairness is something that we teach other humans? I'm not going to say that's incorrect. It could easily be.
However, the idea of fairness and the idea of possession are extremely similar. They are both seen as being one of the major points of, well, being human. We can see the effects of both at a very young age. If we have to teach people one of them, and it works extremely well (staying with them for life, causing them to teach it to their children for life etc.) then surely we could just as easily tech children to ignore the other, and they would lose it for life and they would teach their children to lose it for life...
Either way, communism's possible.
Cheesecat wrote: The problem with communism isn't so much to do with human nature but more to do with creating a system that lacks competition that is essential for innovation, you know what everyone should just read sebster's posts in this thread as it should have been over by then.
The assumption that competition is better for innovation than cooperation is not something I agree with.
I don't mean to offend you but I find it pretty hard to believe that you are studying politics at a university level and have these kinds of views and opinions.
It is pretty well documented that the vast majority of humanity's radical advancements have come during times of war as a result of the direct competition involved especially during the modern age, from the previously mentioned advancements in nuclear energy, space exploration, aviation, communications and even modern computers, medicine and countless others!
I believe that there is no better indication of the fundamental flaws in the communist theories, that its proponents have to basically ignore or twist history, economy, politics and human psychology to arrive at an hypothetical future scenario where communism might have a chance to work... maybe.
Yes, many technological advancements have been made during times of war when, you'd think, there was a large amount of competition between countries. And so there was.
However, when's the last time (outside of war) that all the companies and researchers in a single country, never mind an alliance of countries, have come together to try and develop something? In the second world war, german scientists developed rockets from absolutely nothing, yes. But Hitler himself had directed almost all of the country's research and development resources into either this or the bomb, meaning that there was not only more incentive but also far more great minds working on the problem all at once.
Of course it wasn't all down to working together, with all the resources Germany could spare them. But neither was it all down to the competition. So I'd quite like to see an example where competition visibly sped things up in the absence of cooperation and sped things up more than cooperation in the absence of increased competition.
However, when's the last time (outside of war) that all the companies and researchers in a single country, never mind an alliance of countries, have come together to try and develop something? In the second world war, german scientists developed rockets from absolutely nothing, yes. But Hitler himself had directed almost all of the country's research and development resources into either this or the bomb, meaning that there was not only more incentive but also far more great minds working on the problem all at once.
No, you're wrong.
Germany had multiple such "wonder weapons" programs running at the same time, the V1 / V2 project, super-bomber project, several different jet propulsion projects, super-tanks projects, etc, etc. Not one of those was a national scale program like you are talking about.
Of course it wasn't all down to working together, with all the resources Germany could spare them. But neither was it all down to the competition. So I'd quite like to see an example where competition visibly sped things up in the absence of cooperation and sped things up more than cooperation in the absence of increased competition.
What are you talking about "absence of cooperation"? There is no such thing in human history! We are a social species and as such will cooperate with each other to gain advantages over other species or even other human beings.
And if you wan't examples to prove your "wishful thinking" theories, you go out and find them. I wish you the best of luck because I, for one, can't think of a single example.
Cheesecat wrote: The problem with communism isn't so much to do with human nature but more to do with creating a system that lacks competition that is essential for innovation, you know what everyone should just read sebster's posts in this thread as it should have been over by then.
The assumption that competition is better for innovation than cooperation is not something I agree with.
I don't mean to offend you but I find it pretty hard to believe that you are studying politics at a university level and have these kinds of views and opinions.
It is pretty well documented that the vast majority of humanities radical advancements have come during times of war as a result of the direct competition involved especially during the modern age, from the previously mentioned advancements in nuclear energy, space exploration, aviation, communications and even modern computers, medicine and countless others!
I believe that there is no better indication of the fundamental flaws in the communist theories, that its proponents have to basically ignore or twist history, economy, politics and human psychology to arrive at an hypothetical future scenario where communism might have a chance to work... maybe.
Are you serious? First you call me a child, and now you call me a liar, and you don't mean to offend? I would suggest you work on your ability to hold a discussion without resorting to personal attacks. Seriously, just grow up.
If you'd actually read the source material I provided you would know that every technological achievement you mentioned had a measure of cooperation to it and would not have been possible otherwise. You would also know that Game Theory shows that on an individual level competition may beat cooperation, but when those cooperating form groups they far outstrip competition. But you didn't read it, so you don't know any of those things.
It is pretty well documented that the vast majority of humanities radical advancements have come during times of war as a result of the direct competition involved especially during the modern age, from the previously mentioned advancements in nuclear energy, space exploration, aviation, communications and even modern computers, medicine and countless others!
No it isn't.
It's a POV put forwards by some but it's not documented at all.
One notes that all of the examples you listed were invented outside of times of war, and were then developed further towards military applications when it hit the proverbial fan.
Even then this is a relatively modern phenomenon, caused mainly one would suggest by the total war idea or model -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
-- really requires a post industrial society to be truly effective. If one looks at the past empires like the Romans barely advanced technologically despite pretty much being at war constantly.What knowledge they did have really having been .... borrowed.... from the Greeks. Who whilst they had militaristic tendencies achieved a hell of a lot outside of warfare no ?
I think at best one can seriously claim is that war drives the advancement of practical applications of ideas and theories whilst -- owing to resource management -- it drives down the amount of theoretical work that is done, and this is often where the truly amazing leaps happen.
Furthermore now that we live in the age of the true multinational conglomerates, with the budgets and resources they can command, the advancements we're making in some fields -- bio technologies for example -- make much bigger strides in times of peace than they do in times of war.
.. well.. until Monsanto et al weaponise their goods anyway.
If you'd actually read the source material I provided you would know that every technological achievement you mentioned had a measure of cooperation to it and would not have been possible otherwise. You would also know that Game Theory shows that on an individual level competition may beat cooperation, but when those cooperating form groups they far outstrip competition. But you didn't read it, so you don't know any of those things.
Cooperation is part of human nature and isn't an exclusive of communist societies, neither does it contradict the competition part. We have cooperating people in everything we do in modern society, competing against other groups of people that are also cooperating with each other. Lack of competition, on the other hand, is almost an exclusive of a communist society.
This means that the part of Game Theory that you are trying to apply here really doesn't apply! Because we aren't talking about cooperative vs noncooperative we are talking about a type of hybrid games in which groups on cooperative individuals are playing in a noncooperative way.
I'll extend to you the same challenge that p_gray99 did, please find an example of a major breakthrough for humanity that was accomplished in a non-competitive environment.
If you'd actually read the source material I provided you would know that every technological achievement you mentioned had a measure of cooperation to it and would not have been possible otherwise. You would also know that Game Theory shows that on an individual level competition may beat cooperation, but when those cooperating form groups they far outstrip competition. But you didn't read it, so you don't know any of those things.
Cooperation is part of human nature and isn't an exclusive of communist societies, neither does it contradict the competition part. We have cooperating people in everything we do in modern society, competing against other groups of people that are also cooperating with each other. Lack of competition, on the other hand, is almost an exclusive of a communist society.
This means that the part of Game Theory that you are trying to apply here really doesn't apply! Because we aren't talking about cooperative vs noncooperative we are talking about a type of hybrid games in which groups on cooperative individuals are playing in a noncooperative way.
I'll extend to you the same challenge that p_gray99 did, please find an example of a major breakthrough for humanity that was accomplished in a non-competitive environment.
Polio vaccine? Does it count as competition if everyone is racing to find a cure?
It is pretty well documented that the vast majority of humanities radical advancements have come during times of war as a result of the direct competition involved especially during the modern age, from the previously mentioned advancements in nuclear energy, space exploration, aviation, communications and even modern computers, medicine and countless others!
No it isn't.
It's a POV put forwards by some but it's not documented at all.
One notes that all of the examples you listed were invented outside of times of war, and were then developed further towards military applications when it hit the proverbial fan.
Note that I didn't say "inventions", I said "advancements" as in "practical applications of". That some or all of the things where invented or theorized before doesn't invalidate that in 1939 people where riding horses into battle and in 1945 we had nuclear energy, jet engines and computers. You can postulate that the same could have happened outside the competitive environment of a large scale conflict but that would be pure speculation.
Even then this is a relatively modern phenomenon, caused mainly one would suggest by the total war idea or model -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
-- really requires a post industrial society to be truly effective. If one looks at the past empires like the Romans barely advanced technologically despite pretty much being at war constantly.What knowledge they did have really having been .... borrowed.... from the Greeks. Who whilst they had militaristic tendencies achieved a hell of a lot outside of warfare no ?
Completely agree with you, that is why I put the "especially during the modern age" in my post. Also the Greeks of the time were composed of nothing but city states that where in an almost permanent state of conflict and competition with each other, you could just as truly say that it was this competition that motivated most of their advancements.
I think at best one can seriously claim is that war drives the advancement of practical applications of ideas and theories whilst -- owing to resource management -- it drives down the amount of theoretical work that is done, and this is often where the truly amazing leaps happen.
Furthermore now that we live in the age of the true multinational conglomerates, with the budgets and resources they can command, the advancements we're making in some fields -- bio technologies for example -- make much bigger strides in times of peace than they do in times of war.
.. well.. until Monsanto et al weaponise their goods anyway.
You've misunderstood my post in this point, my point wasn't that war advances mankind, it was that competition advances mankind and that war is the ultimate form of competition known to man (or was until recently).
But I agree with you that in the world that we live today, the competition in which modern global conglomerates engage with each other will be a much better catalyst for advancement than the sort of low-level conflict that epitomises modern warfare.
I'll extend to you the same challenge that p_gray99 did, please find an example of a major breakthrough for humanity that was accomplished in a non-competitive environment.
Just one?
How about the discovery of the Higgs Boson, or HIV retrovirals, or the Human Genome Project?
Polio vaccine? Does it count as competition if everyone is racing to find a cure?
I don't know, is a race considered a competition usually?
Seriously now, considering that both vaccines use such different methods would you say that Salk and Sabin were cooperating or competing with each other? Even in the normally cooperating environments of high-level science and medicine, the recognition and benefits that one gets from being the first to discover something is a huge motivator.
Note that I didn't say "inventions", I said "advancements" as in "practical applications of". That some or all of the things where invented or theorized before doesn't invalidate that in 1939 people where riding horses into battle and in 1945 we had nuclear energy, jet engines and computers. You can postulate that the same could have happened outside the competitive environment of a large scale conflict but that would be pure speculation.
These horses you refer to would presumably be related in some form or other to the beasts that we still use in warfare today yes ?
Apart from countless battles and skirmishes in which the Polish cavalry units fought dismounted, there were 16 confirmed[4] cavalry charges during the 1939 war. Contrary to common belief, most of them were successful.
The first and perhaps best known happened on September 1, 1939, during the Battle of Krojanty. During this action, elements of the Polish 18th Uhlan Regiment met a large group of German infantry resting in the woods near the village of Krojanty. Colonel Mastalerz decided to take the enemy by surprise and immediately ordered a cavalry charge, a tactic the Polish cavalry rarely used as their main weapon. The charge was successful and the German infantry unit was dispersed.
The same day, German war correspondents were brought to the battlefield together with two journalists from Italy. They were shown the battlefield, the corpses of Polish cavalrymen and their horses, alongside German tanks that had arrived at the field of battle only after the engagement. One of the Italian correspondents sent home an article,[5] in which he described the bravery and heroism of Polish soldiers, who charged German tanks with their sabres and lances. Other possible source of the myth is a quote from Heinz Guderian's memoirs, in which he asserted that the Pomeranian Brigade had charged on German tanks with swords and lances.[6] Although such a charge did not happen and there were no tanks used during the combat, the myth was disseminated by German propaganda during the war with a staged Polish cavalry charge shown in their 1941 reel called "Geschwader Lützow".[1] After the end of World War II the same fraud was again being disseminated by Soviet propaganda as an example of the stupidity of Polish commanders and authorities, who allegedly did not prepare their country for war and instead wasted the blood of their soldiers.[citation needed]
Even such prominent German writers as Günter Grass, later accused of anti-Polonism by Jan Józef Lipski among others, were falling victims to this Nazi deception. Grass wrote the following passage, somewhat metaphorically, in his famous novel The Tin Drum:
O insane cavalry... with what aplomb they will kiss the hand of death, as though death were a lady; but first they gather, with sunset behind them - for color and romance are their reserves - and ahead of them the German tanks, stallions from the studs of Krupps von Bohlen und Halbach, no nobler steeds in all the world. But Pan Kichot, the eccentric knight in love with death, lowers his lance with the red-and-white pennant and calls on his men to kiss the lady's hand. The storks clatter white and red on rooftops, and the sunset spits out pits like cherries, as he cries to his cavalry: "Ye noble Poles on horseback, these are no steel tanks, they are mere windmills or sheep, I summon you to kiss the lady's hand".
On 1 September 2009 Sir Simon Jenkins, writing for the The Guardian newspaper's website, characterised the notion of pitting Polish cavalry against tanks as "the most romantic and idiotic act of suicide of modern war."[7] On 21 September 2009, The Guardian was forced to publish an admission that his article "repeated a myth of the second world war, fostered by Nazi propagandists, when it said that Polish lancers turned their horses to face Hitler's panzers. There is no evidence that this occurred."[7]
I think it's just as well we haven't abandoned the idea.
.. well.. unless you're up against drunk geordies perhaps but that's a whole other thread .
We also had computers and so prior to WW II as well. What happened during that period was the research with regards to them was very specific and directed, so one can just as easily say that computers were in fact limited by WW II as some of the more modern/esoteric uses for them weren't investigated until later.
I'll extend to you the same challenge that p_gray99 did, please find an example of a major breakthrough for humanity that was accomplished in a non-competitive environment.
Just one?
How about the discovery of the Higgs Boson, or HIV retrovirals, or the Human Genome Project?
All of those were discovered in capitalist societies and you had a huge number of competing teams vying for the honours and money associated with them, especially in the case of the HIV antiretrovirals that where developed by PRIVATE medical labs.
We also had computers and so prior to WW II as well. What happened during that period was the research with regards to them was very specific and directed, so one can just as easily say that computers were in fact limited by WW II as some of the more modern/esoteric uses for them weren't investigated until later.
Citation please. And as a computer engineering graduate I'm genuinely interested in this, because my computer history class stated that the first computer even remotely worthy of the name was built in 1939.
I'll extend to you the same challenge that p_gray99 did, please find an example of a major breakthrough for humanity that was accomplished in a non-competitive environment.
Just one? How about the discovery of the Higgs Boson, or HIV retrovirals, or the Human Genome Project?
All of those were discovered in capitalist societies and you had a huge number of competing teams vying for the honours and money associated with them, especially in the case of the HIV antiretrovirals that where developed by PRIVATE medical labs.
Please try again.
So please tell me more about the other LHC and the other Genome Project.
You can't now move goalposts to suit yourself, you asked for a major breakthrough from a non competitive environment, not an achievement from a communist society, which as we have discussed has never existed. The irony of a no true scotsman response is hopefully not lost on you.
We also had computers and so prior to WW II as well. What happened during that period was the research with regards to them was very specific and directed, so one can just as easily say that computers were in fact limited by WW II as some of the more modern/esoteric uses for them weren't investigated until later.
Citation please. And as a computer engineering graduate I'm genuinely interested in this, because my computer history class stated that the first computer even remotely worthy of the name was built in 1939.
Do you not know about the Turing machine? Or is that not remotely worth the name?
So please tell me more about the other LHC and the other Genome Project.
You can't now move goalposts to suit yourself, you asked for a major breakthrough from a non competitive environment, not an achievement from a communist society, which as we have discussed has never existed. The irony of a no true scotsman response is hopefully not lost on you.
There were two concurrent human genome projects, the government funded one and the one developed by the Celera Corporation. They were run in direct competition with each other.
Again, the Higgs Boson discovery was the result of 40 years of competition between several countries, universities and individual scientists. Including the competition between the US and Europe for the location of the LHC itself.
Claiming that competition had a small or no part to play in both of those discoveries is dismissing of practically everything that led to the moment of the discovery itself.
And what I really meant was a breakthrough made by a communist country in a non-competitive environment, that most of humanity acknowledges have existed several examples of (communist countries, not breakthroughs by them) in the past century.
Citation please. And as a computer engineering graduate I'm genuinely interested in this, because my computer history class stated that the first computer even remotely worthy of the name was built in 1939.
Do you not know about the Turing machine? Or is that not remotely worth the name?
This might be a failure of my education or even a result of the onset of senility, but from what I remember the original Thuring machine is just an hypothetical representation and was never translated into an actual machine except much later than 1945.
So please tell me more about the other LHC and the other Genome Project.
You can't now move goalposts to suit yourself, you asked for a major breakthrough from a non competitive environment, not an achievement from a communist society, which as we have discussed has never existed. The irony of a no true scotsman response is hopefully not lost on you.
There were two concurrent human genome projects, the government funded one and the one developed by the Celera Corporation. They were run in direct competition with each other.
Again, the Higgs Boson discovery was the result of 40 years of competition between several countries, universities and individual scientists. Including the competition between the US and Europe for the location of the LHC itself.
Claiming that competition had a small or no part to play in both of those discoveries is dismissing of practically everything that led to the moment of the discovery itself.
And what I really meant was a breakthrough made by a communist country in a non-competitive environment, that most of humanity acknowledges have existed several examples of (communist countries, not breakthroughs by them) in the past century.
So for 40 years they competed on finding the Higgs, then the countries of the world came together and funded and staffed a massive research project and discovered it...
Most of humanity may well think something, but that does not make it true. Communism is the collective ownership of resources and means of production, there has never been a case of that in the modern world, if you can provide an example of such a thing then please go ahead.
You are basically asking for a technological breakthrough from a series of countries who from their very conception were involved in war, but that breakthrough cannot include anything gained by war. Do you see the ridiculousness of such a request?
I'll extend to you the same challenge that p_gray99 did, please find an example of a major breakthrough for humanity that was accomplished in a non-competitive environment.
Just one?
How about the discovery of the Higgs Boson, or HIV retrovirals, or the Human Genome Project?
Uh... dude... those are done in a competitive setting.
I'll extend to you the same challenge that p_gray99 did, please find an example of a major breakthrough for humanity that was accomplished in a non-competitive environment.
Just one?
How about the discovery of the Higgs Boson, or HIV retrovirals, or the Human Genome Project?
Uh... dude... those are done in a competitive setting.
LHC is funded by numerous countries, you have the US and Iran working to the same end.
Retrovirals research has seen vast amounts of shared data.
HGP worked on the Bemuda Principles.
I'll extend to you the same challenge that p_gray99 did, please find an example of a major breakthrough for humanity that was accomplished in a non-competitive environment.
Just one?
How about the discovery of the Higgs Boson, or HIV retrovirals, or the Human Genome Project?
Uh... dude... those are done in a competitive setting.
LHC is funded by numerous countries, you have the US and Iran working to the same end.
Retrovirals research has seen vast amounts of shared data.
HGP worked on the Bemuda Principles.
Doesn't seem that competitive to me.
Um... are you familiar with the "competition" for federal grants? Go ask any university researchers...
LHC is funded by numerous countries, you have the US and Iran working to the same end.
Retrovirals research has seen vast amounts of shared data.
HGP worked on the Bemuda Principles.
Doesn't seem that competitive to me.
Just because the funding was a cooperative venture doesn't mean that anything else was (apart from the work inside the scientific teams that is).
Every one of the scientists involved in those discoveries will have had to compete for the job with other scientists.
Every manager in the project will have had to compete for extra-funding with other similar projects.
Every manufacturer of the machines that actually made the discovery possible will have been in direct competition for the contracts.
Even the funding that each country contributes to the project is in direct competition with other similar projects in their respective countries.
LHC is funded by numerous countries, you have the US and Iran working to the same end.
Retrovirals research has seen vast amounts of shared data.
HGP worked on the Bemuda Principles.
Doesn't seem that competitive to me.
Just because the funding was a cooperative venture doesn't mean that anything else was (apart from the work inside the scientific teams that is).
Every one of the scientists involved in those discoveries will have had to compete for the job with other scientists.
Every manager in the project will have had to compete for extra-funding with other similar projects.
Every manufacturer of the machines that actually made the discovery possible will have been in direct competition for the contracts.
Even the funding that each country contributes to the project is in direct competition with other similar projects in their respective countries.
So you refuse to accept cooperative ventures if there is any form of competition anywhere involved. Could you name a single achievement that was made without cooperation? I'm guessing not.
LHC is funded by numerous countries, you have the US and Iran working to the same end.
Retrovirals research has seen vast amounts of shared data.
HGP worked on the Bemuda Principles.
Doesn't seem that competitive to me.
Just because the funding was a cooperative venture doesn't mean that anything else was (apart from the work inside the scientific teams that is).
Every one of the scientists involved in those discoveries will have had to compete for the job with other scientists.
Every manager in the project will have had to compete for extra-funding with other similar projects.
Every manufacturer of the machines that actually made the discovery possible will have been in direct competition for the contracts.
Even the funding that each country contributes to the project is in direct competition with other similar projects in their respective countries.
So you refuse to accept cooperative ventures if there is any form of competition anywhere involved. Could you name a single achievement that was made without cooperation? I'm guessing not.
The reason it's hard to find a success that hasn't had any competition to do with it is that there haven't been many (or any that I know of) well-funded attempts to create new technology without any competition. So that means that out of 0 attempts to create new technology in such circumstances, 0 have succeeded, giving a 100% success rate.
I am well aware of that. A point was raised on the last page or so that it is universally accepted that competition is better for human achievement than cooperation. I showed that it is not universally accepted by referencing the work of Harvard evolutionary biologist Martin Nowak, and the discussion on whether cooperation or competition is better for advancement went from there.
I am well aware of that. A point was raised on the last page or so that it is universally accepted that competition is better for human achievement than cooperation. I showed that it is not universally accepted by referencing the work of Harvard evolutionary biologist Martin Nowak, and the discussion on whether cooperation or competition is better for advancement went from there.
No, you are the only one trying to make that point, everyone else is just arguing that cooperation with competition (capitalist model) is better than just cooperation (communist model).
No, you are the only one trying to make that point, everyone else is just arguing that cooperation with competition (capitalist model) is better than just cooperation (communist model).
Really?
The problem with communism isn't so much to do with human nature but more to do with creating a system that lacks competition that is essential for innovation
The claim that competition is essential for innovation is just that, a claim. My issue is that it is often taken as fact, when it is still a debated subject.
Also the capitalist model has us all as independent agents competing, there is no room for cooperation within the ideological capitalism, only exploitation. Of course our implementation of capitalism does allow it, by bringing in aspects of socialist ideology.
Frazzled wrote: So again, in the real world, you're expressing the view that communism can't exist. Therefore, as a model its, as Mr. Rogers would say, a mountain sized pile of unworkable gak and pee.
So far in the real world, however as i have already posted if people tried it would be possible.
Communism is not impossible, just highly fragile, it needs 100% dedication.
2 Things
1.I'm not trying to start a revolution here, it is just my humble opinion
2.HURRAY its my 200th post.
1. Congrats on 200th post.
2. If it requires 100% dedication, then as a model its horrifically flawed and unworkable outside of Heaven/Paradise/The Great Kennel and isn't actually worthy of discussion outside of those contexts.
1.Thank you
2.Raising children takes 100% dedication, does that mean that being a parent is horrifically flawed and unworkable.
Frazzled wrote: So again, in the real world, you're expressing the view that communism can't exist. Therefore, as a model its, as Mr. Rogers would say, a mountain sized pile of unworkable gak and pee.
So far in the real world, however as i have already posted if people tried it would be possible.
Communism is not impossible, just highly fragile, it needs 100% dedication.
2 Things
1.I'm not trying to start a revolution here, it is just my humble opinion
2.HURRAY its my 200th post.
1. Congrats on 200th post.
2. If it requires 100% dedication, then as a model its horrifically flawed and unworkable outside of Heaven/Paradise/The Great Kennel and isn't actually worthy of discussion outside of those contexts.
1.Thank you
2.Raising children takes 100% dedication, does that mean that being a parent is horrifically flawed and unworkable.
1. 'grats.
2. Horrifically flaw?? To a certain degree... that's accurate. "Unworkable"? No... because there's no such thing as a "perfect utopian" parent.
And in a similar way, it might easily be impossible to have an entirely flawless system, but we can make the vast, vast majority of communism work without the tiny flaws causing the whole thing to fail.
Also the capitalist model has us all as independent agents competing, there is no room for cooperation within the ideological capitalism, only exploitation. Of course our implementation of capitalism does allow it, by bringing in aspects of socialist ideology.
Agreed, that's why I said that pure Capitalism is just as utopian as pure Communism.
But I will argue to my dying breath that our implementation of Capitalism is a better system for the real world than any possible implementation of Communism.
Also the capitalist model has us all as independent agents competing, there is no room for cooperation within the ideological capitalism, only exploitation. Of course our implementation of capitalism does allow it, by bringing in aspects of socialist ideology.
Agreed, that's why I said that pure Capitalism is just as utopian as pure Communism.
But I will argue to my dying breath that our implementation of Capitalism is a better system for the real world than any possible implementation of Communism.
And I shall argue that the system implemented has less to do with the success of a society than how it is adulterated and the benevolence of those in charge. Any system with centralised control, be it on the far right or the far left, has far more capacity for corruption than moderate, centralist positions like we have. And while I agree with Plato in that the only people we should give power to are those who don't want it, I still think our best chance of implementing communism, or any other form of utopia, is by handing power to vastly intellectually superior AIs.
Do you really think that our system is better than any possible communist system? Even if the communist system worked and meant not a single child ever died of hunger again? I am an idealist in that I think certain ideals are what we should aim for, but if a differing ideology actually worked perfectly then I would happily take that for the good of everyone.
p_gray99 wrote: And in a similar way, it might easily be impossible to have an entirely flawless system, but we can make the vast, vast majority of communism work without the tiny flaws causing the whole thing to fail.
your tiny flaw is the individual human will. The human will is not founded in reason, but in unreason. Why should one human being believe himself the equal of another when the other lacks a penis, has a mental disorder, scores well below average on every exam, speaks with an accent, has a different skin color, wears a different hat than you do, or has an inferior preference for cats instead of Dachshunds? Communism makes a lovely argument, but opposes millennia of history and failure. Sure, "communism" does and has worked on small scales where the entire community hauls together to survive, where each member knows the other by first name, but the moment you make a permanent settlement, is the moment you establish the definition of property, of what's mine and what isn't. The sheer quantity of energy required to eliminate needs and make wants meaningless is so far off as to be ridiculous, and what we are left with is, at best, to provide a socialist structure where the needs of minimum daily calorie intake, a roof, running water and enough heat so you don't freeze to death in the winter are met. Understand, communism can't be seen as a working structure when a supposedly set of christian nations are filled with people that refute science and reason, opt for a ridiculous lies about the history and the origin of the world, use that to inform their science, while at the same time being as devout as they are on Sundays proceed to piss on the homeless and the needy every day of the year except Christmas and Thanksgiving. Oh but wait, some foreign country was just hit with X catastrophe. Let's continue pissing on our own citizens, cut the support they are getting, and instead send aid to countries that have made it clear they don't want our assistance, all the while everything we send over to those countries inevitably ends up in the hands of drug-funded warlords..........
MetalOxide wrote: Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.
Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.
And while the top 1% still rule in communism, that's not to say they necessarily have the best time of it. If the communism is working, they still get just the same stuff as everyone else, they just get the added bonus of a headache trying to keep it all running.
The regimes in China, USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua prove the falsehood of that statement.
To be fair, Vietnam isn't too bad a place to be by Southeast Asian standards. It's certainly no Okinawa when it comes to standards of living, but it's sure as hell no North Korea.
MetalOxide wrote: Both communism and capitalism ends up with the top 1% lording it over the 99%.
Yes, but the difference is that with capitalism the top 1% are having a great time because they're the only ones with everything they want while the bottom 30% starve.
And while the top 1% still rule in communism, that's not to say they necessarily have the best time of it. If the communism is working, they still get just the same stuff as everyone else, they just get the added bonus of a headache trying to keep it all running.
The regimes in China, USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua prove the falsehood of that statement.
To be fair, Vietnam isn't too bad a place to be by Southeast Asian standards. It's certainly no Okinawa when it comes to standards of living, but it's sure as hell no North Korea.
No the quite was referencing that the ruling party has it substantially better than the average drone.
Do you really think that our system is better than any possible communist system? Even if the communist system worked and meant not a single child ever died of hunger again? I am an idealist in that I think certain ideals are what we should aim for, but if a differing ideology actually worked perfectly then I would happily take that for the good of everyone.
But I don't believe that a communist system can work. I don't believe it because for it to work, humans would have to stop being human or we would have to have such a vast amount of resources available to us as a species as to make personal possessions meaningless.
As it stands, the systems that we have in place in western european capitalist democracies are pretty good at making sure that no child should die of hunger ever again. I vastly prefer trying to expand that system to the rest of the planet than to strive for something that will never be.
Do you really think that our system is better than any possible communist system? Even if the communist system worked and meant not a single child ever died of hunger again? I am an idealist in that I think certain ideals are what we should aim for, but if a differing ideology actually worked perfectly then I would happily take that for the good of everyone.
But I don't believe that a communist system can work. I don't believe it because for it to work, humans would have to stop being human or we would have to have such a vast amount of resources available to us as a species as to make personal possessions meaningless.
As it stands, the systems that we have in place in western european capitalist democracies are pretty good at making sure that no child should die of hunger ever again. I vastly prefer trying to expand that system to the rest of the planet than to strive for something that will never be.
With the correct application of intellect and technology we could arrive at a post-scarcity society within the next century if not much sooner. Although our current system will do everything to not let that happen, look at what capitalism did to Tesla's work toward free electricity.
Do you really think that our system is better than any possible communist system? Even if the communist system worked and meant not a single child ever died of hunger again? I am an idealist in that I think certain ideals are what we should aim for, but if a differing ideology actually worked perfectly then I would happily take that for the good of everyone.
But I don't believe that a communist system can work. I don't believe it because for it to work, humans would have to stop being human or we would have to have such a vast amount of resources available to us as a species as to make personal possessions meaningless.
As it stands, the systems that we have in place in western european capitalist democracies are pretty good at making sure that no child should die of hunger ever again. I vastly prefer trying to expand that system to the rest of the planet than to strive for something that will never be.
With the correct application of intellect and technology we could arrive at a post-scarcity society within the next century if not much sooner. Although our current system will do everything to not let that happen, look at what capitalism did to Tesla's work toward free electricity.
we could achieve it in two to three generations with brainwashing and absolute control. I don't see how we can achieve a post-scarcity society within a century using tech. All I see is oil reserves drying up one by one, rainforests put to the torch like no tomorrow; meaning energy crisis worsening and clean air getting harder to get at. When iphones and ipads are hot products along with all the other latest gadgets, you can perpetually drive consumer scarcity, and because people are fundamentally stupid, they will continue buying things they don't need, to their financial detriment. Take war gaming as another example. Do i really, honestly, do i really need 7 armies from one system?
we could achieve it in two to three generations with brainwashing and absolute control. I don't see how we can achieve a post-scarcity society within a century using tech. All I see is oil reserves drying up one by one, rainforests put to the torch like no tomorrow; meaning energy crisis worsening and clean air getting harder to get at. When iphones and ipads are hot products along with all the other latest gadgets, you can perpetually drive consumer scarcity, and because people are fundamentally stupid, they will continue buying things they don't need, to their financial detriment.
Fusion is of course 20 years away (just like it was 20 years ago) Seriously though we could solve our energy needs with Thorium or with solar farms and Archimedes death rays in deserts transferring the power with superconductors around the world. The march of consumerism is something that needs to be addressed, for the mental wellbeing issue as much as the resource one.
Take war gaming as another example. Do i really, honestly, do i really need 7 armies from one system?
we could achieve it in two to three generations with brainwashing and absolute control. I don't see how we can achieve a post-scarcity society within a century using tech. All I see is oil reserves drying up one by one, rainforests put to the torch like no tomorrow; meaning energy crisis worsening and clean air getting harder to get at. When iphones and ipads are hot products along with all the other latest gadgets, you can perpetually drive consumer scarcity, and because people are fundamentally stupid, they will continue buying things they don't need, to their financial detriment.
Fusion is of course 20 years away (just like it was 20 years ago) Seriously though we could solve our energy needs with Thorium or with solar farms and Archimedes death rays in deserts transferring the power with superconductors around the world. The march of consumerism is something that needs to be addressed, for the mental wellbeing issue as much as the resource one.
Take war gaming as another example. Do i really, honestly, do i really need 7 armies from one system?
Yes, we all do.
i completely agree with you, but whatever the reasons are, utility was crushed under the iron heels of wealthy industrialists. I'm not kidding you, but the products that you buy now are absolute trash. Case in point, apple. It's overhyped, oversold, overadvertised, and the people just can't crawl far enough up into your..... ..... .... with their tongues to make you buy it and believe it. Now I have an apple device, I can't understand how people continue to give it such good ratings, because it falls short on so many features. It's just a glorified fancy toy. The market needs to produce garbage, so that it can continuously and incrementally "improve" on the device and re-release it every 6-12 months, all the while maintaining profits. Look at the computer gaming industry. Spacmarine is a brilliant example of trash and excrement sold as gourmet top of the line... Face it, the game was unfiinished when it went to market, and the expansions which expanded the game functionality in multiplayer had to be bought. I mean, people beat and stamp eachother to death every thanksgiving for a discount.... you can't address that anymore, it's so deep as to require a complete cultural overhaul. As to the energy, I'm well aware that the US has a GIGANTIC stockpile of thorium, and they wouldn't even have to mine it for quite a few years after building a reactor. Boggles my mind. I don't see how cheap and nearly-free energy is going to kill jobs. If you have the energy, you will have people stepping forward to take advantage of it: maglev lines, electric vehicles, countless electronic devices, urban decorational lighting, highway lighting, etc. for every 100 jobs killed, 1000 would be created.
we could achieve it in two to three generations with brainwashing and absolute control. I don't see how we can achieve a post-scarcity society within a century using tech. All I see is oil reserves drying up one by one, rainforests put to the torch like no tomorrow; meaning energy crisis worsening and clean air getting harder to get at. When iphones and ipads are hot products along with all the other latest gadgets, you can perpetually drive consumer scarcity, and because people are fundamentally stupid, they will continue buying things they don't need, to their financial detriment.
Fusion is of course 20 years away (just like it was 20 years ago) Seriously though we could solve our energy needs with Thorium or with solar farms and Archimedes death rays in deserts transferring the power with superconductors around the world. The march of consumerism is something that needs to be addressed, for the mental wellbeing issue as much as the resource one.
Take war gaming as another example. Do i really, honestly, do i really need 7 armies from one system?
Yes, we all do.
You have no concept of world energy needs now, much less when China and India reach First World status.
poda_t wrote: Your tiny flaw is the individual human will. The human will is not founded in reason, but in unreason. Why should one human being believe himself the equal of another when the other lacks a penis, has a mental disorder, scores well below average on every exam, speaks with an accent, has a different skin color, wears a different hat than you do, or has an inferior preference for cats instead of Dachshunds? Communism makes a lovely argument, but opposes millennia of history and failure. Sure, "communism" does and has worked on small scales where the entire community hauls together to survive, where each member knows the other by first name, but the moment you make a permanent settlement, is the moment you establish the definition of property, of what's mine and what isn't. The sheer quantity of energy required to eliminate needs and make wants meaningless is so far off as to be ridiculous, and what we are left with is, at best, to provide a socialist structure where the needs of minimum daily calorie intake, a roof, running water and enough heat so you don't freeze to death in the winter are met. Understand, communism can't be seen as a working structure when a supposedly set of christian nations are filled with people that refute science and reason, opt for a ridiculous lies about the history and the origin of the world, use that to inform their science, while at the same time being as devout as they are on Sundays proceed to piss on the homeless and the needy every day of the year except Christmas and Thanksgiving. Oh but wait, some foreign country was just hit with X catastrophe. Let's continue pissing on our own citizens, cut the support they are getting, and instead send aid to countries that have made it clear they don't want our assistance, all the while everything we send over to those countries inevitably ends up in the hands of drug-funded warlords..........
*sigh*
Firstly, cats are better than dachsunds.
Secondly, your main argument seems to be that things are in such a mess now that however much they improve, they will never get that far.
You are also saying that people will always think other people are worth less than them because they're other people, not them.
Towards both your points, might I take you back to a previous example I gave concerning slavery? In roughly 200 years, slaves who were dying in droves in the bottoms of mines suddenly gained freedom and the ability to say "Nah, I don't feel like working in that mine any more." Had you told one of the Roman slaves that within 2 centuries they'd have that choice, they'd have laughed, before being whipped to death for laughing rather than working.
And sure, a reasonable number of people still think that black people are worth less than white people. But the percentage of people that believe this is falling. And those that still do believe it often keep it to themselves because of peer pressure, and so might as well not believe it, even if inwardly they do.
You're going to private school now correct? Would you like a system where a person who did not invest years in school, deferred their lives to get thats schooling, make no more than someone who didn't?
Yup. I would. And before you call me a hypocrite, I'm going to a private school so that I can become better educated, which will allow me to better help the entirety of humanity in the future.
And anyway, if I wasn't at the private school someone else would be, so that would solve nothing in any case.
p_gray99 wrote: Yup. I would. And before you call me a hypocrite, I'm going to a private school so that I can become better educated, which will allow me to better help the entirety of humanity in the future.
And anyway, if I wasn't at the private school someone else would be, so that would solve nothing in any case.
So will you donate all money your make over the minimum wage to charity?
p_gray99 wrote: *sigh*
Firstly, cats are better than dachsunds.
Secondly, your main argument seems to be that things are in such a mess now that however much they improve, they will never get that far.
You are also saying that people will always think other people are worth less than them because they're other people, not them.
Towards both your points, might I take you back to a previous example I gave concerning slavery? In roughly 200 years, slaves who were dying in droves in the bottoms of mines suddenly gained freedom and the ability to say "Nah, I don't feel like working in that mine any more." Had you told one of the Roman slaves that within 2 centuries they'd have that choice, they'd have laughed, before being whipped to death for laughing rather than working.
And sure, a reasonable number of people still think that black people are worth less than white people. But the percentage of people that believe this is falling. And those that still do believe it often keep it to themselves because of peer pressure, and so might as well not believe it, even if inwardly they do.
are you kidding me? cats are jerks.
have you studied roman history in detail then, have you? or is that greek history? And are you aware of this problem between religious individuals [censored] on their own religious teaching on any day that isn't Sunday? Or how about the fact that at the end of the day, like how my uncle's own personal wealth meant more to him than his family, he just does what he wants and leaves the family out to hang? You can physically counter each of my arguments sure, but countering the spirit of my argument is going to be impossible, because you have the entire human history to work against, though I do grant that there are some actual rays of sunshine in there.
You can also make a remark about how the lot of the black person has been improved through the abolishment of slavery. I'm sure they felt the same way when people dressed as point-hatted ghosts started appearing in their neighbourhoods, or about how social discrimination continued to persist for so long that we will continue to deal with the ramifications for the next century--assuming we are actually progressively working toward correcting wrongs and actually leveling the playing field.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
p_gray99 wrote: Yup. I would. And before you call me a hypocrite, I'm going to a private school so that I can become better educated, which will allow me to better help the entirety of humanity in the future.
And anyway, if I wasn't at the private school someone else would be, so that would solve nothing in any case.
this is naive. Granted you are young, and you have some growing up to do. You are not the first person who stepped forward with this in mind, and many times have been people with altruistic motives that have caused more damage than help.
as a free-paying (i don't give money) school child in what might be his last year, i would like to point out to the person that is going to private school that you are being hypocritical as private schools immediatly produce a class divid of those that can and those that can not afford to go.
In addition i don't know your results, i'm Scottish so your results are diffrent from mine, and don't tell me your results, this is the internet so there is no way to prove your results, anyway back to the point i am trying to make, what about the the really intelligent people who are to poor to go private thus go to state, but have much better marks than you and might do better than you, surely it is better to have the toip people in the top positions and not simply have education based on how much money you'r parents earn.
BTW did i see China and India mentioned, when they become a first world country either things will dramatically increase due to the increase in 2 huge economies (at the time), or it will fall apart in which case capitolism will be to much of a selfish way to proceed.
poda_t wrote:are you kidding me? cats are jerks.
have you studied roman history in detail then, have you? or is that greek history? And are you aware of this problem between religious individuals [censored] on their own religious teaching on any day that isn't Sunday? Or how about the fact that at the end of the day, like how my uncle's own personal wealth meant more to him than his family, he just does what he wants and leaves the family out to hang? You can physically counter each of my arguments sure, but countering the spirit of my argument is going to be impossible, because you have the entire human history to work against, though I do grant that there are some actual rays of sunshine in there.
You can also make a remark about how the lot of the black person has been improved through the abolishment of slavery. I'm sure they felt the same way when people dressed as point-hatted ghosts started appearing in their neighbourhoods, or about how social discrimination continued to persist for so long that we will continue to deal with the ramifications for the next century--assuming we are actually progressively working toward correcting wrongs and actually leveling the playing field.
Cats aren't jerks! They're our lords and masters, and we must bow before them! All hail the mighty cat-gods!
Yeah, there's quite a bit of bleak stuff in the history of humanity, it's undeniable. And improvements have often been closely followed by collapses that take things back to a level close to the previous one, sometimes worse than. However, in Europe at around the year 0 (AD or BC), there was little in the way of human rights. Ok, many people actually got a vote (hurrah!), but only if they were male Roman citizens (which wasn't all that many of them), and the vote of the rich counted for far more than the vote of the poor. But digression over, those who had anything like a vote were a vast minority considering the size of the roman republic. Considering the average level of human rights back then compared to the average level of human rights now, it's impossible to say that it hasn't improved drastically. Yes, there's still a small amount of racism, but it's dying out. Overall, things have changed drastically for the better, and as I see it there's little reason why that couldn't (in the best case scenario) continue to happen until we reach a stable form of communism.
p_gray99 wrote: Yup. I would. And before you call me a hypocrite, I'm going to a private school so that I can become better educated, which will allow me to better help the entirety of humanity in the future.
And anyway, if I wasn't at the private school someone else would be, so that would solve nothing in any case.
this is naive. Granted you are young, and you have some growing up to do. You are not the first person who stepped forward with this in mind, and many times have been people with altruistic motives that have caused more damage than help.
True. What's to say it'll be the same for me though? I'm not denying that it's unlikely that I'll do any good at the rate things are going. But the chances are drastically higher than if I wasn't at a private school.
And as I said before, it wouldn't do any good if I didn't go to private school, because there would simply be some other bugger with more money than sense getting a great education that they don't deserve. I've always agreed that I've done nothing to deserve what I have: Private education, a good home with a loving family, living in Britain where you don't have to worry about where to get your food if your entire family suddenly becomes unemployed, not having to work from the age of 8 or have to struggle to get food and clean water...
But, heck, who here with internet access can say they've worked their way up from an African slum via hard work? And if you did, then does even that mean you deserve it? I mean, look at my previous points about a strong will being nothing more than luck...
strybjorn Grimskull wrote:as a free-paying (i don't give money) school child in what might be his last year, i would like to point out to the person that is going to private school that you are being hypocritical as private schools immediately produce a class divide of those that can and those that can not afford to go.
In addition i don't know your results, I'm Scottish so your results are different from mine, and don't tell me your results, this is the internet so there is no way to prove your results, anyway back to the point i am trying to make, what about the the really intelligent people who are too poor to go private thus go to state, but have much better marks than you and might do better than you, surely it is better to have the top people in the top positions and not simply have education based on how much money your parents earn.
*sigh*
I think that you're missing the point about luck. Yes, I'm exceptionally lucky and I'm luckier than you. I'm sorry for making you feel jealous but I'm not going to drop out of school just because of that.
But you were born in Scotland, where there's free healthcare. Are you going to drop out of the EU and let someone else have your free healthcare, free school, certainty of a house etc. because they deserve it just as much?
Now, if someone is born clever (as in your example), what have they done to deserve that? They happen to be born with good genes that give them a lot of intelligence. Does that mean they deserve a better school than everyone else? And yes, it's better to have the best people in the best positions. What can you do about it? What can any of us do about it? Apart from, well... push for communism?
Next point: I'm on a scholarship. If you're intelligent enough to be leading the country then you can get to a private school without paying a penny for it, and with parents who have lower-middle-class jobs at best, don't say that I've been born with a silver spoon in my mouth; it was only stainless steel with a silver coating. And anyway, you talk about how much their parents earn. I think you'll find that parents whose kids go to private school may get payed a heck of a lot, but they barely earn a penny of it. Earn, after all, implies that you deserve it.
strybjorn Grimskull wrote:as a free-paying (i don't give money) school child in what might be his last year, i would like to point out to the person that is going to private school that you are being hypocritical as private schools immediately produce a class divide of those that can and those that can not afford to go.
In addition i don't know your results, I'm Scottish so your results are different from mine, and don't tell me your results, this is the internet so there is no way to prove your results, anyway back to the point i am trying to make, what about the the really intelligent people who are too poor to go private thus go to state, but have much better marks than you and might do better than you, surely it is better to have the top people in the top positions and not simply have education based on how much money your parents earn.
*sigh*
I think that you're missing the point about luck. Yes, I'm exceptionally lucky and I'm luckier than you. I'm sorry for making you feel jealous but I'm not going to drop out of school just because of that.
But you were born in Scotland, where there's free healthcare. Are you going to drop out of the EU and let someone else have your free healthcare, free school, certainty of a house etc. because they deserve it just as much?
Now, if someone is born clever (as in your example), what have they done to deserve that? They happen to be born with good genes that give them a lot of intelligence. Does that mean they deserve a better school than everyone else? And yes, it's better to have the best people in the best positions. What can you do about it? What can any of us do about it? Apart from, well... push for communism?
Next point: I'm on a scholarship. If you're intelligent enough to be leading the country then you can get to a private school without paying a penny for it, and with parents who have lower-middle-class jobs at best, don't say that I've been born with a silver spoon in my mouth; it was only stainless steel with a silver coating. And anyway, you talk about how much their parents earn. I think you'll find that parents whose kids go to private school may get payed a heck of a lot, but they barely earn a penny of it. Earn, after all, implies that you deserve it.
Sorry if the editing went sideways there
If you'r on a scholarship then well done you seriously, as for free healthcare i want every country to have free health care, as a communist i am against the EU because it is no longer a trading hub and is now interfering to much.
But you are correct you should earn money according to what you contribue in every day life, not just what you think is a reasonable amount for you job.
Ok the editing did go sideways so anybody reading this from the "sorry..." part up is his, below is mine.
I'm not sure if we should each earn money according to what we contribute in everyday life, but it's certainly a better system than what we currently have. But it's not like we can do anything about that... sorting out that kind of paying system would probably need a centralised government in charge of it all, and would pretty much lead to all the same problems as communism but with the system paying out less fairly overall.
But I'm trying to convince people that, beside the point of whether it could ever work, communism is the most fair possible system, and for some reason nobody is arguing with me. That's unlike dakka, I've never had it before. Heck, normally if I said "I'm standing upright" it'd start the debate of the century.
Oh dear gods, why on Earth did I just say that? I just have started the debate of the century!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I noticed in all that, you didn't answer my question as to whether you would be donating ALL benefits you receive over minimum wage to charity.
I'll be putting all my available resources towards creating a communist society.
And, of course, I've got to keep myself motivated so that I can keep on giving away money like that, so I'll have 3 riptide battlesuits and two kabalite warrior squads, please
Damn straight. Demons are the only list6 who's god visits you on the actual game table, expressing its pleasure or displeasure through random luck.
My soulgrinder drops oh wait its held back a turn
Hah hah! now it will drop oh wait it randomly goes over there, right next to those er...terminators...yerghh...
But I'm trying to convince people that, beside the point of whether it could ever work, communism is the most fair possible system, and for some reason nobody is arguing with me.
No, its not. And I'm arguing with you.
Me and my family deserve more than the bum on the street corner because we work harder, are smarter, better educated and have the mental strength to not be addicted to drugs and / or alcool.
Communism doesn't reward effort, it just rewards existence.
Your entire existence as a person argues against your "beliefs". You haven't even left what appears to be a very sheltered existence in a private school and yet you are claiming that your higher educational standards allow you to see what is better for humanity clearer than the rest of the 90% of the people! Do you even realise how elitist and un-communist that is? Or actually it isn't, because that is the entire foundation of all the Communist (or socialist-marxist not to offend Dael), countries in the world: the vast, vast majority of them were founded by sheltered higher middle class people that thought that their ideals were all that was needed and that the unwashed masses would just follow them into utopia...
And your slavery example is also incredibly flawed.
Slavery wasn't in human nature and the abolishment of slavery had nothing to do with some higher state of human enlightenment. Slavery was made illegal in most instances simply because machines were invented that were more efficient and cost effective than slaves. Heck, people may even reasonably argue that there are several examples of slavery happening currently, just because it was made illegal doesn't mean that it magically stopped happening! Let me know when humanity manages to eradicate racism and xenophobia and we can start discussing the possibility of changing human nature.
But I'm trying to convince people that, beside the point of whether it could ever work, communism is the most fair possible system, and for some reason nobody is arguing with me.
No, its not. And I'm arguing with you.
Me and my family deserve more than the bum on the street corner because we work harder, are smarter, better educated and have the mental strength to not be addicted to drugs and / or alcohol.
Finally, a reasoned argument against me!
Right then.
Suppose you didn't know where in society you would be born: What parents you would have, what genes you would have...
The Veil of Ignorance is just this philosophical idea that you can only be truly fair if you consider what you would do in a position where you have no idea where in society you will be born; that all you know is that you will be born human. Of course, you would say that if one person does better than another because s/he was born to a richer family, s/he doesn't deserve more money simply because of mere luck?
And what if he was male rather than female, or black rather than white, then they still deserve the same amount of money? After all, the person doing better has done no more than the other man would have done had he been given the chance, it's simply chance that one is doing better and surely you don't deserve more money because you were lucky?
Ok then, so what if you were born with more intelligence? Surely that's luck as well, whether it's due to nature or nurture? Being lucky, after all, doesn't mean you deserve any more!
So surely, then, the thing that separates people and shows how one group deserves more is how much effort they put in, right? ...right?
But (as I've said before) firstborn children do better than second-born children. They have (on average) the same genes and the same family, and the same number of opportunities. The only thing that makes them better is their willpower. And yet, here is a strong link between being born first and being stronger willed.
And of course, some families for generations have all been strong-willed, while other families over the generations have simply kept their heads down and carried on working. Perhaps it's genes? Perhaps it's upbringing? But either way, it's pot luck. And surely pot luck doesn't make you deserve more than anyone else?
Communism doesn't reward effort, it just rewards existence.
And what is effort? If you find yourself wanting to do a job well, what causes that? You may think "I cause it," but that's a lie. You were brought up to enjoy it? Or maybe you just naturally enjoy it. You can't have chosen to enjoy it, and even if you did what made you choose it? Your upbringing or your genes, maybe?
Your entire existence as a person argues against your "beliefs". You haven't even left what appears to be a very sheltered existence in a private school and yet you are claiming that your higher educational standards allow you to see what is better for humanity clearer than the rest of the 90% of the people! Do you even realise how elitist and un-communist that is? Or actually it isn't, because that is the entire foundation of all the Communist (or socialist-marxist not to offend Dael), countries in the world: the vast, vast majority of them were founded by sheltered higher middle class people that thought that their ideals were all that was needed and that the unwashed masses would just follow them into utopia...
The majority of humanity, if given a single wish by a genie, would probably choose something along the lines of a loving partner, or to win the lottery, or some such thing. What would you choose?
I, for one, would choose greatest happiness for the greatest number. Of course, people are trying to make themselves happier by wishing for winning the lottery or similar things, but they don't know that's what they want, at least consciously. People want happiness and certainty, yet they wish for love and money in a failed attempt towards this. I'm not saying I'm the perfect guide for humanity, but I'd say that I have a better idea of what people want than most of them do. Perhaps that's arrogant of me. But did you say greatest happiness for the greatest number, or greatest happiness for yourself? Because, let's be honest, that's what you want.
The entirety of human life is trying to become happier. Eat your favourite food? Makes you happier. Fall in love? Makes you happier. Get good grades at college? Makes you happier. When's the last time you strived to do something that you didn't think would make you happier at some level?
And your slavery example is also incredibly flawed.
Slavery wasn't in human nature and the abolishment of slavery had nothing to do with some higher state of human enlightenment. Slavery was made illegal in most instances simply because machines were invented that were more efficient and cost effective than slaves. Heck, people may even reasonably argue that there are several examples of slavery happening currently, just because it was made illegal doesn't mean that it magically stopped happening! Let me know when humanity manages to eradicate racism and xenophobia and we can start discussing the possibility of changing human nature.
Slavery may not be in human nature. Wanting other people to do your work for you, however, most certainly is. Xenophobia has also been proven to be a trait of humanity; in fact scientists found a gene that causes it. I'm not saying we've gotten rid of these, I'm saying that society as a whole has got rid of them in that anyone saying "I dislike black people" will be thrown out of society, and everyone thinks that everyone else wants them to think people are equal, to the point where peer pressure is actually causing it.
The work is far from complete, I agree, but it's a heck of a lot better to how we had it 2000 years ago!
All you've said may even be true, in a philosophical sense. In the real world we have a little thing called scarcity of resources, which means that for me to have ALL that I wan't (and make no mistake, I do want it ALL), someone else will have to settle for less.
For someone to be a doctor and understand the joys of saving a life, or to become an astronaut and be able to travel into space, someone else will have to sweep the streets or go down into a sceptic tank to clear a blockage.
In your communist utopia, with our current resources, I would be a doctor one day and be up to my neck in human excrement in the next, because everyone would be able to live their dreams, but the functioning of society would still need to be maintained and as much as dirty jobs are hated by everyone, they are just as important for it and HAVE to be done by someone. And most importantly, in your society I would have a 0% chance of improve my lot in life, because I would be just like the guy next to me, no matter how much luck nature and upbringing could make me better than him at any given task. And I might not have been lucky enough to be brain surgeon in our society, but at least I'm not forced to be the guy in the sewer through no fault of my own.
To finalise, yes, I'm incredibly lucky in my family, my education and even my intelligence and those were all of the things that allowed me to reach where I am today, but in your model of society, my job would be made by someone that would have gotten it, not through ability, but simply by existing and that job wouldn't be done as well as I can do it and as infinitesimal as my contribute is to the betterment of the human race, it is that contribute and the billions like it that all put together allow our race to progress and evolve and you simply don't have that in communist societies, leading to stagnation and eventual regression and collapse.
Your "wish" doesn't work in real life, real life is a zero sum game, for some people to be as happy as they possibly can be, an equal or larger number of people will have to be a bit more miserable then they could be. For every newborn child, there will be a little less oxygen, food and drinking water for the rest of us. For every someone that falls in love and gets married for life, every other single person will have a slightly less chance to find true love...
Slavery may not be in human nature. Wanting other people to do your work for you, however, most certainly is. Xenophobia has also been proven to be a trait of humanity; in fact scientists found a gene that causes it. I'm not saying we've gotten rid of these, I'm saying that society as a whole has got rid of them in that anyone saying "I dislike black people" will be thrown out of society, and everyone thinks that everyone else wants them to think people are equal, to the point where peer pressure is actually causing it.
No, society hasn't gotten rid of racism or xenophobia, you just haven't gotten in touch with them because of your sheltered existence. Go take a walk in your poorer neighbourhoods and you'll see it thrive. Take a year to attend a public school and then come back and say that racist people are "thrown out of society".
The work is far from complete, I agree, but it's a heck of a lot better to how we had it 2000 years ago!
It is, but its been made better by the model that we have in place today. What you are saying is that since our model is imperfect, we should throw all the work we've done away and replace it with good intentions and that, as all the socialist-marxist countries have exemplified, is the pavement on the road to hell.
Frazzled wrote:
You have no concept of world energy needs now, much less when China and India reach First World status.
It's astronomically large, and growing exponentially, but the number is dwarfed massively by the levels of available energy even from solar, wind, wave and geothermal power, never mind such things as Thorium or Fusion.
PhantomViper wrote:
Me and my family deserve more than the bum on the street corner because we work harder, are smarter, better educated and have the mental strength to not be addicted to drugs and / or alcool.
But there but for the grace of god go us all, you have no knowledge how hard the bum on the street has worked. He could have worked tirelessly for decades only for the stars to align against him resulting in his home repossessed and him out on the street.
Communism doesn't reward effort, it just rewards existence.
Capitalism isn't exactly a meritocracy though, look at the likes of Paris Hylton.
Slavery wasn't in human nature and the abolishment of slavery had nothing to do with some higher state of human enlightenment. Slavery was made illegal in most instances simply because machines were invented that were more efficient and cost effective than slaves.
I don't know about other countries but that wasn't the case in England, slavery was effectively outlawed in 1772 in Somersett's case where the judge ruled
The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged
This was later supported by the slave trade act of 1807, and the slavery abolition act of 1833. There was nothing to do with industrialisation to it as it did not originally stem from Parliament, but from the moral outrage of a single judge.
The emancipation of women over the last century is probably a better example of social change toward fairness. There is no capitalist reason for giving women the vote, or the right to own property and yet it has been universally accepted in the western world as the right thing to do.
PhantomViper wrote:
Me and my family deserve more than the bum on the street corner because we work harder, are smarter, better educated and have the mental strength to not be addicted to drugs and / or alcool.
But there but for the grace of god go us all, you have no knowledge how hard the bum on the street has worked. He could have worked tirelessly for decades only for the stars to align against him resulting in his home repossessed and him out on the street.
Things don't exactly work like that in western europe. If you've worked all of your life you've had to have had massive amounts of bad luck to end up in a situation like that, more often than not the people that do end up on the street do so because they've made some pretty spectacularly bad choices in life.
Communism doesn't reward effort, it just rewards existence.
Capitalism isn't exactly a meritocracy though, look at the likes of Paris Hylton.
Cool story, do you wan't me to share all of my own stories that prove the exact opposite? Capitalism is much more based on individual merit than Communism will ever be, the fact that you can find some random anecdotes that don't follow the general system doesn't prove anything.
Slavery wasn't in human nature and the abolishment of slavery had nothing to do with some higher state of human enlightenment. Slavery was made illegal in most instances simply because machines were invented that were more efficient and cost effective than slaves.
I don't know about other countries but that wasn't the case in England, slavery was effectively outlawed in 1772 in Somersett's case where the judge ruled
The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged
This was later supported by the slave trade act of 1807, and the slavery abolition act of 1833. There was nothing to do with industrialisation to it as it did not originally stem from Parliament, but from the moral outrage of a single judge.
No, there has been people outraged with slavery for the entirety of human history. You can bet your caboodles (hey that is a real word who would have thunk), that if the industrial revolution didn't happen then that single judge's outrage wouldn't have changed a thing and that the act of 1833 wouldn't have been passed. And again, cases of human slavery still happen today, even in jolly old Britain, just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean that its stop happening.
The emancipation of women over the last century is probably a better example of social change toward fairness. There is no capitalist reason for giving women the vote, or the right to own property and yet it has been universally accepted in the western world as the right thing to do.
And again the emancipation of women has very strong ties to the fact that women were needed to take the places of men in production during the industrial revolution and especially during world war 1. It certainly wasn't done for any reasons of fairness, it was done because women assumed a much more active role in the capitalist economy.
And again, even today, women are still paid less than men when performing similar jobs, there goes that theory of modern societies fairness and enlightenment out the window again!
Capitalism isn't exactly a meritocracy though, look at the likes of Paris Hylton.
Cool story, do you wan't me to share all of my own stories that prove the exact opposite? Capitalism is much more based on individual merit than Communism will ever be, the fact that you can find some random anecdotes that don't follow the general system doesn't prove anything.
It proves that hard work is not needed if your family have done well out of capitalism already, and the further back you go the more exploitative it seems that the doing well came from. Inheriting a fortune is not based on any form of individual merit.
No, there has been people outraged with slavery for the entirety of human history. You can bet your caboodles (hey that is a real word who would have thunk), that if the industrial revolution didn't happen then that single judge's outrage wouldn't have changed a thing and that the act of 1833 wouldn't have been passed. And again, cases of human slavery still happen today, even in jolly old Britain, just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean that its stop happening.
England has common law, so that single judges outrage would have changed everything, the only way to overturn it would be through a higher court. All the later Acts of Parliament changed was how the colonies were governed. Besides the capitalist model would much rather have slaves than free men who you have to pay, that comes straight out of the profit margin. The abolition of slavery was far more to do with morality than economics.
And again the emancipation of women has very strong ties to the fact that women were needed to take the places of men in production during the industrial revolution and especially during world war 1. It certainly wasn't done for any reasons of fairness, it was done because women assumed a much more active role in the capitalist economy.
I don't think you are giving the sufferage movement the credit it is due, they changed social attitudes and from there the law slowly caught up (and still hasn't). If it was only for the factors you mentioned then why did Portugal allow women the vote in 1976? The industrial revolution was long over and there were no wars to speak of. Or did the economy of Portugal only need the labour of women in the seventies and not before?
It proves that hard work is not needed if your family have done well out of capitalism already, and the further back you go the more exploitative it seems that the doing well came from. Inheriting a fortune is not based on any form of individual merit.
Agreed, but maintaining that fortune requires effort, lets see how her estate fairs when her father dies. So far she is the equivalent of a minor that is provided for by her family.
No, there has been people outraged with slavery for the entirety of human history. You can bet your caboodles (hey that is a real word who would have thunk), that if the industrial revolution didn't happen then that single judge's outrage wouldn't have changed a thing and that the act of 1833 wouldn't have been passed. And again, cases of human slavery still happen today, even in jolly old Britain, just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean that its stop happening.
England has common law, so that single judges outrage would have changed everything, the only way to overturn it would be through a higher court. All the later Acts of Parliament changed was how the colonies were governed. Besides the capitalist model would much rather have slaves than free men who you have to pay, that comes straight out of the profit margin. The abolition of slavery was far more to do with morality than economics.
No, the capitalist model doesn't prefer to have slaves that is a preposterous notion!
First of all, slaves are only good to preform the most menial of tasks, tasks that are perform infinitely faster by machines in modern times. For the type of economy that we have you need an educated and motivated work force, that wouldn't be possible with slaves.
Second, the capitalist system obviously wouldn't prefer slavery simply because we live in a capitalist system and slavery was made illegal by that same system...
And thirdly the most large scale examples of "modern slavery" come from the USSR and PRC that were both Socialist-Marxist countries...
And again the emancipation of women has very strong ties to the fact that women were needed to take the places of men in production during the industrial revolution and especially during world war 1. It certainly wasn't done for any reasons of fairness, it was done because women assumed a much more active role in the capitalist economy.
I don't think you are giving the sufferage movement the credit it is due, they changed social attitudes and from there the law slowly caught up (and still hasn't). If it was only for the factors you mentioned then why did Portugal allow women the vote in 1976? The industrial revolution was long over and there were no wars to speak of. Or did the economy of Portugal only need the labour of women in the seventies and not before?
No wars to speak of? Really? I know that the Portuguese Colonial Wars aren't very well known outside of our country, but a conflict that raged from 1960 to 1974 and puled more then 150.000 males out from the workforce had something to do with it?
And pre-revolutionary Portugal (<1974) was a very backwards country relying mostly in an agricultural subsistence economy. The country only really started developing industrially after the Carnations Revolution of 1974.
It proves that hard work is not needed if your family have done well out of capitalism already, and the further back you go the more exploitative it seems that the doing well came from. Inheriting a fortune is not based on any form of individual merit.
Agreed, but maintaining that fortune requires effort, lets see how her estate fairs when her father dies. So far she is the equivalent of a minor that is provided for by her family.
Actually, most rich people simply spend a large amount of money (though not large in comparison to their total sum) to hire people to look after it for them. This means that the majority of the fortune is safe (unless the owner is a complete idiot and doesn't listen to the people they hired) and they barely have to waste a second thinking about it.
No, there has been people outraged with slavery for the entirety of human history. You can bet your caboodles (hey that is a real word who would have thunk), that if the industrial revolution didn't happen then that single judge's outrage wouldn't have changed a thing and that the act of 1833 wouldn't have been passed. And again, cases of human slavery still happen today, even in jolly old Britain, just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean that its stop happening.
England has common law, so that single judges outrage would have changed everything, the only way to overturn it would be through a higher court. All the later Acts of Parliament changed was how the colonies were governed. Besides the capitalist model would much rather have slaves than free men who you have to pay, that comes straight out of the profit margin. The abolition of slavery was far more to do with morality than economics.
First of all, slaves are only good to preform the most menial of tasks, tasks that are perform infinitely faster by machines in modern times. For the type of economy that we have you need an educated and motivated work force, that wouldn't be possible with slaves.
Second, the capitalist system obviously wouldn't prefer slavery simply because we live in a capitalist system and slavery was made illegal by that same system...
And thirdly the most large scale examples of "modern slavery" come from the USSR and PRC that were both Socialist-Marxist countries...
No, the capitalist model doesn't prefer to have slaves that is a preposterous notion!
Yeah, why on Earth would any capitalist want to be allowed to pay their workers less than the minimum wage? Whether you have a person doing the job or a machine is beside the point, and you're always going to need at least a few humans to do jobs such as hoovering. Which, by the way, it's cheaper to buy a slave to do than hire someone at the minimum wage. And yet, when's the last time you saw a hoover being dragged around by a guy in chains?
And as we have discussed before, just because the USSR did something does not mean that communism has anything to do with it. The USSR was bad, we agree, but that has nothing to do with the conversation.
All you've said may even be true, in a philosophical sense. In the real world we have a little thing called scarcity of resources, which means that for me to have ALL that I wan't (and make no mistake, I do want it ALL), someone else will have to settle for less.
Please, explain to me what resources have to do with fairness? Honestly, I'm intrigued as to how you could ever think that fairness and resources are linked in any way. Until you answer that, you haven't answered my point.
For someone to be a doctor and understand the joys of saving a life, or to become an astronaut and be able to travel into space, someone else will have to sweep the streets or go down into a sceptic tank to clear a blockage.
Yup. Is there a problem with that? I'm not saying it shouldn't be that way, I'm saying that they should get equal pay. Because the person saving someone's life is only in that better position due to luck.
In your communist utopia, with our current resources, I would be a doctor one day and be up to my neck in human excrement in the next, because everyone would be able to live their dreams, but the functioning of society would still need to be maintained and as much as dirty jobs are hated by everyone, they are just as important for it and HAVE to be done by someone. And most importantly, in your society I would have a 0% chance of improve my lot in life, because I would be just like the guy next to me, no matter how much luck nature and upbringing could make me better than him at any given task. And I might not have been lucky enough to be brain surgeon in our society, but at least I'm not forced to be the guy in the sewer through no fault of my own.
I never said that! It's entirely ridiculous to think that you'd need to change jobs! ALL I SAID WAS THAT FAIRNESS = EQUAL PAY,not fairness = everyone doing every job! Those two ideas are completely different!
And as for everyone being just like they guy next to them, that's just as ridiculous! Being payed the same as someone else doesn't instantly transform you into being the same person! Of course you could change your position to one you preferred, and of course some people would be better than others!
Please, please, PLEASE read what I've written and answer than, rather than reading what I've written and answering what you think I'm trying to say! I never said people would be the same because they get payed the same, I never said people would have to switch and share jobs, I never said everyone would be able to live their dreams. I only said that it is unfair to pay people better for being more lucky.
You know what? I'm not even going to bother reading the remainder of your post, until you have proven to me that you read mine without jumping to conclusions, assuming I meant something or having some LSD in the middle of it.
You've just demonstrated that you don't even know what communism means and defends... I really don't know why I wasting my time arguing political theory with children, have a nice day.
PhantomViper wrote:You've just demonstrated that you don't even know what communism means and defends... I really don't know why I wasting my time arguing political theory with children, have a nice day.
Uh... I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're saying.
Wikipedia: Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.
Communism does not include everyone having every job in the world. Communism does not include everyone being identical to everyone else. It simply means that everyone is equal to everyone else, and there is no difference in material wealth available to you because of your job.
I also get the feeling that ever since I told you I'm not at work yet, that somehow in your mind makes me either an idiot or in some way inferior, such that my views automatically count for less (if anything at all). Yes, I haven't been to work. Sure, I've got less experience, but I've also got less bias. Please don't tell me that I'm wrong based on my age, which has nothing to do with whether I'm correct or not.
Frazzled wrote:
Because the person saving someone's life is only in that better position due to luck.
That statement displays such level of ignorance as to beggar belief.
Tell me, have you read what I wrote about fairness? You're arguing against my point without actually saying how I'm wrong or even suggesting that I have any reasons in the first place.
It has little to do with fairness. You made the statement that doctors are only doctors and save lives because they are lucky. IN your paradigm the only difference between the cashier at McDonalds and the Oncologist is "luck."
To make this statement one has to ignore: *The rigorous screening process just to get into medical school.
*The years of intensive education required, at a level most people (and I am not excluded) cannot handle.
*The years of internships and other sacrfices made to do so.
wow just wow.
And FYI we're not saying anything related to your education, just your inexperience. Thats ok. With experience becomes crankiness and the desire to keep everyone off your lawn.
Frazzled wrote: It has little to do with fairness. You made the statement that doctors are only doctors and save lives because they are lucky. IN your paradigm the only difference between the cashier at McDonalds and the Oncologist is "luck."
To make this statement one has to ignore:
*The rigorous screening process just to get into medical school.
*The years of intensive education required, at a level most people (and I am not excluded) cannot handle.
*The years of internships and other sacrfices made to do so.
wow just wow.
And FYI we're not saying anything related to your education, just your inexperience. Thats ok. With experience becomes crankiness and the desire to keep everyone off your lawn.
It always seems the young, and particularly those who swing in artistic circles who feel that communism would really work... Once most of these people enter the "real" world and have to actually work for their money, they quickly abandon many of these views, and find an ideology that fits closer with actual reality.
This is again, not a knock on education type or level, just that when people are young they can afford to be more ideological.
It always seems the young, and particularly those who swing in artistic circles who feel that communism would really work... Once most of these people enter the "real" world and have to actually work for their money, they quickly abandon many of these views, and find an ideology that fits closer with actual reality.
This is again, not a knock on education type or level, just that when people are young they can afford to be more ideological.
because all those young men that marched to their graves between 1914-1918 weren't lied to by their ideologically polarized elites.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: It has little to do with fairness. You made the statement that doctors are only doctors and save lives because they are lucky. IN your paradigm the only difference between the cashier at McDonalds and the Oncologist is "luck."
To make this statement one has to ignore:
*The rigorous screening process just to get into medical school.
*The years of intensive education required, at a level most people (and I am not excluded) cannot handle.
*The years of internships and other sacrfices made to do so.
wow just wow.
And FYI we're not saying anything related to your education, just your inexperience. Thats ok. With experience becomes crankiness and the desire to keep everyone off your lawn.
well, there is a luck factor. I know some guys that did all of the above and got pissed on because they had a distinct lack of a penis, and these strange things on their chests called mammary glands, and the small problem that they weren't actually men, but women. When one institution refuses to take you for whatever reason, including a lack of space to accept all candidates, other institutions that catch wind of your lack of acceptance make assumptions and place the equivalent of the mark of death on your file. Then let's not forget that some profs develop a preference for not tolerating anything less than complete devotion and a personality cult, and will opt for arbitrarily flunking certain students for no other reason than they don't like them. Granted, there's usually a way out of these, sometimes it's a long round-about, but some luck is involved in it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
p_gray99 wrote: Communism does not include everyone having every job in the world. Communism does not include everyone being identical to everyone else. It simply means that everyone is equal to everyone else, and there is no difference in material wealth available to you because of your job.
sauce? You need sauce with this. I agree with this, but only up to a certain point. My own analysis insists on industry department universality. Fire-teams may have designated marksmen, but everyone still learns to shoot.....
I also get the feeling that ever since I told you I'm not at work yet, that somehow in your mind makes me either an idiot or in some way inferior, such that my views automatically count for less (if anything at all). Yes, I haven't been to work. Sure, I've got less experience, but I've also got less bias. Please don't tell me that I'm wrong based on my age, which has nothing to do with whether I'm correct or not.
I'm calling you out on BS there mate. Objectivity is incredibly rare, and damn near non-existent for youth. I still find I have to reel myself in and reevaluate. Bias is integrated into our very beings. To say that you, without any work experience, an incomplete private education, a lack of world experience and access to Wikipedia, have less bias is total BS. You have one of the biggest biases that most people grow out of, which is the view and expectation that the world is as simple as written into high-school textbooks, nevermind that half of the things written into those textbooks can only evade academic quantification as a lie on the merit that what's in them is very, very, very truncated, and very, very, very cursory. You are deluding yourself when you say you have less bias, which only highlights in greater detail your lack of social and political awareness.
It always seems the young, and particularly those who swing in artistic circles who feel that communism would really work... Once most of these people enter the "real" world and have to actually work for their money, they quickly abandon many of these views, and find an ideology that fits closer with actual reality.
This is again, not a knock on education type or level, just that when people are young they can afford to be more ideological.
because all those young men that marched to their graves between 1914-1918 weren't lied to by their ideologically polarized elites.
WW1 was a little more complicated than all that. Sure there are plenty of people, some of whom get into positions of great power that continue with their "overly" ideological ways. Hell in some ways, there are some out there who have complete changes in ideology as they progress through life (see Hitler as just one example of changing or gaining ideologies later in life)
Frazzled wrote: It has little to do with fairness. You made the statement that doctors are only doctors and save lives because they are lucky. IN your paradigm the only difference between the cashier at McDonalds and the Oncologist is "luck."
To make this statement one has to ignore:
*The rigorous screening process just to get into medical school.
*The years of intensive education required, at a level most people (and I am not excluded) cannot handle.
*The years of internships and other sacrfices made to do so.
wow just wow.
And FYI we're not saying anything related to your education, just your inexperience. Thats ok. With experience becomes crankiness and the desire to keep everyone off your lawn.
Apparently you've completely missed out some of my previous posts.
The rigorous screening process: I'm not an expert on getting into medical school, I believe that this thoroughly checks whether you're intelligent and committed enough to do well as a doctor.
Yes, it's hard to get into medical school. However, intelligence (as I have explained before) is due to luck: Some of it is genes (luck), some of it is being born into a situation where you will let your natural abilities develop correctly (luck), and some of it is being committed (and as I have explained before, willpower is down to luck). You can't say it's all because of you that you're in medical school. You were born with a good enough brain, you were born into a family that would allow you to develop the brain well enough, and you have enough willpower (through nature and nurture) to do well. Luck.
Training: I am well aware that those 7 years are particularly hard, I have a friend who wants to be a doctor. Yup, you definitely need the right mindset and willpower. Oh right, those two as I have explained before aren't as much due to yourself as you might think...
Internships, sacrifices, so on: Yup. Intelligence, willpower, so on.
p_gray99 wrote: Communism does not include everyone having every job in the world. Communism does not include everyone being identical to everyone else. It simply means that everyone is equal to everyone else, and there is no difference in material wealth available to you because of your job.
Source? You need source with this. I agree with this, but only up to a certain point. My own analysis insists on industry department universality. Fire-teams may have designated marksmen, but everyone still learns to shoot.....
Uh, burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. I've shown you the wikipedia overall summary of what communism is, it also explains that there are multiple forms of communism and while it may be true you need to do all jobs in one idea of communism, I unfortunately lack (at least partially) the madness necessary to agree with that idea of what communism is.
I also get the feeling that ever since I told you I'm not at work yet, that somehow in your mind makes me either an idiot or in some way inferior, such that my views automatically count for less (if anything at all). Yes, I haven't been to work. Sure, I've got less experience, but I've also got less bias. Please don't tell me that I'm wrong based on my age, which has nothing to do with whether I'm correct or not.
I'm calling you out on BS there mate. Objectivity is incredibly rare, and damn near non-existent for youth. I still find I have to reel myself in and reevaluate. Bias is integrated into our very beings. To say that you, without any work experience, an incomplete private education, a lack of world experience and access to Wikipedia, have less bias is total BS. You have one of the biggest biases that most people grow out of, which is the view and expectation that the world is as simple as written into high-school textbooks, nevermind that half of the things written into those textbooks can only evade academic quantification as a lie on the merit that what's in them is very, very, very truncated, and very, very, very cursory. You are deluding yourself when you say you have less bias, which only highlights in greater detail your lack of social and political awareness.
Oh, I agree I have bias. If anything, bias against communism as I go to a private school, but nobody is free from bias. I'm simply saying that I don't have to deal with the taxman knocking on my door every month and (depending on how you look at it) either taking too much away from me or not taking enough away from those who can afford to give far more.
As for believing that the world is simple, trust me when I say I don't. I can never understand why people do certain things, and TBH I just think "they're doing something illogical, it's what this race appears to default to." All I'm saying is that communism would be better than capitalism if it were possible, which it may well be in the future.
DE wussy. Real Men plays demons and cackle at the utter randomness of the utter whims of the chaos god of Dice!
Wrong real men spend all their time drinking,fighting and worshipping corpses that sit on thrones, GO SPACE WOLVES.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Oh, I agree I have bias. If anything, bias against communism as I go to a private school, but nobody is free from bias. I'm simply saying that I don't have to deal with the taxman knocking on my door every month and (depending on how you look at it) either taking too much away from me or not taking enough away from those who can afford to give far more" (as said by p_gray99)(damn my inability to quote after cutting other bits)
Why is no one getting this, if you approach stuff with bias at all then progress starts halting as everything gets stereotyped and placed into columns and thats not good for anyone.
Frazzled wrote: DE wussy. Real Men plays demons and cackle at the utter randomness of the utter whims of the chaos god of Dice!
Wrong real men spend all their time drinking,fighting and worshipping corpses that sit on thrones, GO SPACE WOLVES.
Don't forget the barking at lawnmowers and so on
p_gray wrote:Oh, I agree I have bias. If anything, bias against communism as I go to a private school, but nobody is free from bias. I'm simply saying that I don't have to deal with the taxman knocking on my door every month and (depending on how you look at it) either taking too much away from me or not taking enough away from those who can afford to give far more
Why is no one getting this, if you approach stuff with bias at all then progress starts halting as everything gets stereotyped and placed into columns and thats not good for anyone.
And when's the last time anyone ever approached something without bias? I am, as far as possible, an entirely logical person. Where possible, I ignore what's already thought about a topic and look at the facts, before trying to reach a logical conclusion. In many cases this brings me to a conclusion that the majority disagree with, whether that's because they didn't think about it logically or simply that their mind works in a different way to mine. I'm never free from bias, but I do do everything I can to ignore it and simply look at the facts.
its my 200th post.
were you lover boy? 
