I've noticed ALL rightwingers are like that. The Right has NEVER done ANYTHING wrong but the Left is to blame for everything, even though the US has no Left! They are trembling in defeat now and insecure as ever. They need a scapegoat. Clinton is STILL their favortite, even though he's been out of office 7 years. They point at gays, Mexicans, Muslims ANYONE to take the spotlight off their own corrupted party. They are even unable to debate the war in government! That's what democracy is supposed to be about, but they can't even defend their disastrous war on the Senate floor after 7 years of running Washington! If you're out of step with King George and Emperor Cheney you are a turrorist, commie, veil lovin, fag! The elections in November shocked their arrogant asses and they still can't look at the camera and defend their criminal war on Iraq. Pathetic. And they say Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to our country??
Did you write all this yourself? I mean, that's a long post. There are mechanisms for dealing with these issues. Capitalism is part of a system of government that includes freedom. So when people in a capitalist country see an injustice, they can do something about it. In a communist dictatorship, you have no way to redress any problems. In capitalism the consumer is free to buy a product or not. He has choices. I, for one, don't buy those damned incandescent bulbs that burn out right away. I buy the compact flourescent ones that last for years. You can buy dolphin safe tuna. We have choices. Peasants living under a dictator do not. Again, freedom to choose. If you're concerned about these things, buy products that fulfill these goals. If they don't exist, create them. There's probably a market for them! Freedom is great. Yet.....mighty empires fall. Microsoft eclipsed IBM. Google came out of nowhere. Yes, there are advantages to being huge. But there are also disadvantages. Mostly they have to do with lack of flexibility, and making decisions by commitee. Now here, at least in this case, you are mistaken. As oil becomes more scarce, the price will increase. As the price of oil increases, alternative fuels become more economical. The market will take care of this problem all by itself. Even these people perform a service. They make capital available to those who need it. They help businesses grow and put their own money at risk to do so. Chris Rock did a funny bit about this. He said they don't cure anything anymore, they just fix you up enough to get by. He predicted that in the future AIDS would be like diabetes, something that you managed with meds that occasionally "acted up". Now this is really absurd if you know anything about ecological conditions under communism. The enviroment was filty and dangerous. Since the people lived as peasants under the thumb of a dictatorship, they could not complain. Wealthy people like a clean environment. It's a luxury just like plasma TV's. Communism creates povery. Poor starving people couldn't care less about the enviroment. Under communism everyone is poor and getting poorer. Except for the dictator and his minions, of course. Furthermore, it's wrong to imply a lack of social mobility under capitalism. My grandfather came from Cuba with nothing. Not even the ability to speak English. He did very well for himself, retired from the Steel Mill, and now lives in Florida (he has a girlfriend in California and spends a lot of time flying around the country.) Meanwhile, his cousin had the pleasure of living in the "worker's paradise" in Cuba. My grandfather took a trip back to Cuba a few years ago and found his relatives living like animals in abject poverty. The standard of living is so low that he was accosted by prostitutes asking only for soap as payment. Furthermore, my grandfather wanted his cousin to serve as his guide. When they walked into his hotel he was informed that Cubans were not allowed to stay in the hotel, or any hotels in Cuba. A true monopoly can only exist with government help to keep out competitors. The only true monopolies we deal with are the utilities and cable companies. Big surprise, this is where we get the worst service. In the case of cable companies, there is no reason for this monopoly and artificial restricitions have created it. It is now possible to recieve TV over satalite, the phone line, cable, the air, or the internet. But federal law makes it difficult to get your local programs in these alternate ways and this keeps the monopolies in place. The problem is government, not capitalism. The bottom line is that under capitalism we have freedom. There are many ways to redress every complaint you mentioned. But under communism, a dictatorship, there are no ways to redress any complaints. The government says jump, you say how high. Furthermore, the poverty caused by communism exacerbates every other problem.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I think okayillgonow and I are having a nice discussion right now. I'll admit that I think my way is right, don't you? But my opinions are guided by logic and I will change them if shown I am incorrect.
Would that that were so! And I have never said "the right" has never done anything wrong. George Bush has done plenty wrong. No, I want the spotlight on the corrupt members of my party. They deserve to be driven out. Gays? I don't care which orifice you stick you genetals in. Mexicans? Hell, I'm hispanic. I do strongly want us to get control over our border. Muslims? No prob with them, just the islamofascists. It is wrong to pass a vote of no confidence when we have soldiers dying in a war. If you're against the war, have some balls and defund it. Don't try to have it both ways and pass a non-binding resolution saying you're against it. This only emboldens our enemies. Just yesterday I did an eye exam on a soldier who is now on his way back to Iraq. He was quite pissed off about this resolution and felt a lot better when I told him it had been defeated by the Republicans. We had a great conversation and at the end he said, "I hope you're representative of the views here in the states." We need to support our troops, not embolden the enemy who is trying to kill them. As I said, if the Democrats in congress are against the war, they should have the courage of their convictions and defund it. The elections sucked. But, you can't win them all. As far as the "criminal war" in Iraq, I, for one, am prepared to defend the war against all comers and do so constantly on this forum. Is it arrogant to believe you are correct? Do you really walk around thinking you are incorrect? I'm sure my opinions on many issues have been informed by my exposure to views far different from my own on this forum. Here in Indiana, most people agree with me on most issues. Sure, there are some Democrats, but they are almost always Democrats because the Union tells them to be Democrats. When I discuss issues with them, we agree on almost everything. I enjoy being exposed to alternative viewpoints. That I regard my own as valid does not seem , to me, arrogant.
Yes, we are having a kick-ass discussion right now. 1. So are my opinions guided by logic. 2. Sure; Communism isn't perfect, but neither is Capitalism. 3. MadAnthonyWayne thinks communism sucks; I, Okayillgonow don't. Everyone has their own opinion. As a result, I think I & MadAnthonyWayne will be arguing for eternity if communism sucks or not. 4. I do believe your statements. I think communism needs changing in many fields. 5. Well, no. The article "Problems with Capitalism" was written by some guy named Roedy Green. 6. Very well put. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In these nations that we call quote-unquote "Communist states", the government ticks, not the masses, own the means of production. As a result, the "dicator & his minions" are getting richer and the masses ARE getting poorer as described by madanthonywayne. However, under common ownership, a basic principle of communism as described via Marx and Engels, everyone owns the means of production. So, how could a nation be called a quote-unquote "Communist state" if the masses don't own the means of production? also, in a society based on common owership, how could the masses get poorer if the masses own the means of production, & therefore wealth??? :bugeye:
I'm sitting in my house. I own it. I can do anything I want. I can walk around naked. I can leave my stuff here. I can light the place on fire. I can play with guns. I can sleep here. I go downtown to the county courthouse. If I do any of the things mentioned above, I'll be arrested. But......it's a public place! The "people" own it! How come I'm not free to do as I choose in a place that I, as a part of "the people", own? Ownership of something by "the people" really means nothing but government control of something. "The people" is only a concept and can't really own anything. Since he who pays the piper calls the tune, government ownership of ther means of production always leads to dictatorship. It's no accident. It's not the result of bad men, but simply of men. Communism can work on a small scale (like a family or small group), but on a large scale.......I don't think so.
The Tragedy of the Commons and the experience of government control in anything shows us that Communism cannot work. Nor should it, as it is a horrible system.
1. Look up "Principles of Communism" on google; click on link, "The Principles of Communism"; on that page, search for the word, "ownership"; you'll notice that it does NOT say public ownership; it says communal (common) ownership. Define communal on google. 2. You're mixing common ownership with public (state) ownership. 3. Yes, under state ownership (when the government owns the means of production), it is much like a feudalist system, because, under state ownership, the government owns the means of production, & therefore wealth, while the masses, having no means of production of their own, are mere beggars left to die, as accurately described by MadAnthonyWayne. Nations that we call quote-unquote "Communist states" or nations like Syria, Libya, & Iran are an example of the Description of State Ownership that MadAnthonyWayne established. However, communism strives for a classless society. As a result, there cannot be a society without classes when the government owns the means of production. To implement a classless society, the masses, not government, need to own the means of production. In other words, to To implement a classless society, we must implement communal (common) ownership.
“ Originally Posted by Spectrum The idea of Communism is that all workers have equal 'shares' of the company for which they work, so that wealth is spread and all people become equal in status. .... ” "Originally posted by Baron Max" No! Communism is NOT about "equal" shares for everyone. It's about providing the worker in accordance with his abilities and work efforts. Lazy workers don't get the same "share" as those who work hard and efficently. So true, it is not communism but freedom, freedom to work, freedom to learn, freedom to do what you are able to do, Edgar Cayce wrote that the hope of the world would come from russia, not the Idea of communism but freedom, that the idea of freedom was born in russia or something like that.
There are monasteries - which do in fact exist within Capitalistic societies. Also, there are a few communal living arrangements in the USA like this one called "The Rabbits" - they are hardcore self sufficient vegetarians. So those communities do exist, life is very megar, but it's possible, it you are serious I am sure they will take you in. Michael
I never said we should be communists, I did say you should look at it from a different angle and see that it has mostly good parts. I'm a socialist, socialism is the good bits of capitalism and the good bits of communism.
Actually I think maybe it's Dancing Rabbits The people look nice enough: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So? Is this what Communism strives to reach for humanity? Seems more like moving back 1 or 2 hundred years? Also, I had another question about communism. Is it that each person does each job? What about brilliant mathematicians? Or computer programmers? Or neural surgeons? Or jet pilots? Do they have to farm? Collect garbage? Clean public toilets? Are they equal members of society? It seems that they actually contribute more than their share. Do they not deserve a little more in return for their extra work or better ability? Also, what about great artists, opera singers, play writes, etc... are they equal to the guy who cleans the spludge off a wank-booth Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! !?!?!?? If everyone is equal then what, where or who is the incentive to get up at 5AM and bust your arse until 10PM? Surely most people would prefer to sit on their arse and type away on Sciforums Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! While Mozart was a genius and he obviously loved his craft - he was also in desperate need for $$$ and that need drove him to create masterworks of art. Just some questions, Michael PS: A Chinese friend of mine once said. The day I can see a guy drive by me in a ZR1 with a couple hot babes on his lap gong to his beach house while I, all alone and on my bike peddling 20km to clean the city toilets each day, can think happily to myself "Why, good on him!!" is the day communism will work.
Just read through the thread, and wanted to add my own thoughts. First, the foundation of Marx and Engels work was the conflict between two classes, the laborers and the producers. They thought that an end to this conflict was inevitable, and that the laborers would one day be the only class, by sharing in the ownership of production. They weren't against Capitalism the way most people think they were. They understood Capitalism to be a necessary step towards Communism. They just wanted to hurry the process along as much as possible to forgo unnecessary strife in the meantime. But here is where Marx and Engel got it completely wrong: they producers didn't disappear under the maturation of Capitalism, they INCREASED! Nobody would have ever thought that the advances in production that we have seen would have been possible. Machines, electricity, computers, robotics, metallurgy, flight, etc... When productions increases by thousands of percents, the equations no longer hold up. Here's what happened: The Laborers became the Producers! Each person has access to a level of wealth in the modern Capitalist state that current opponents can no longer criticize its inability to provide, now they mock its excesses! Capitalism in the 20th century has led to fears of obesity, while Communism led to the starvation of 100 million by many estimates. Russian leaders during the Cold War used to visit, and the first thing they wanted to see was the Supermarkets. I can't remember which Russian president, but one of them said, upon seeing all of the food, that they had failed. Now, Russia isn't the perfect example, Marxism is an ideal philosophy, and Russia was an imperfect attempt. But I think Marx would change his tune if he was alive today. I don't think he would side with his "followers". He was too smart and decent a man for that. Marx would most likely praise the power of the common man today to be an entrepreneur, to control his/her own production, to have so much societal mobility. I really think Marx and Engel wanted what was best for humanity, they were just wrong in how to get there. They can't be blamed for this, it was difficult to foresee how empowered the people would become, and how productive each person could be. All of this is why I think the people that rage in Marx's name do him a disservice. They are anarchists and anti-consumerists who live in a fantasy-land of humans as a "blank slate" that can be reprogrammed with the right words. They pretend that the Native Americans were small, roaming bands of peace-bearing, nature-lovers and that we should all strive to return to this (fictional) past. They are the Jeremiads and the technophobes. What I can not tease out of my understanding of history is how the Liberals ended up in bed with these people. They seem so completely at odds with one another...
What is Tragedy of the Commons? Here's a story to define it: I want Facial, Vslayer, Mosheh Thezion, or any communist to answer this question: Wouldn't Tragedy of the Commons cause Communism to capsize (Fail)? Although Communism is a proposed future for less working hours, wouldn't the consumption of resources be all too great to handle?
