46 replies to this topic

[Dauth]

Quote

As we all know, Communism was started by a man called Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto. My question is simple: what do you think about its ideals and ideology? At basis, I like it, its pretty liberal-save for the religion thing, but then again... I'm an atheist- and although it forms an equal world (which, if you've read some of my posts, I don't like all too much) it DOES allow enough of a difference in people to still allow advancement.

I don't normally respond directly to a topic that I've posted under request but here I will do.
Communism (by another name) was also discussed by Aristotle over 2000 years ago, however the full details are lost in the mists of time. Also there is not one type of Communism there are dozens but I'll pick out a key few.

The final goal of Communism is the dissolution of the Government with the people classless, religionless and moneyless. They would all work and share for the common 'good'. - This is the final ideal that people look too, CodeCat I imagine is one of the people fond of this idea. While I don't think it will ever work (and tbh it sounds dull) there are only a few problems here.

Methods of creating a communist state, Marx said you'd need 50 years of Dictatorship to force people to forget capitalism first, well we live longer now, so make that 70-100 years.
Bolsheviks lead by Stalin, where he forced people to follow a Communist Doctrine, any opposition were shipped off to the Gulag. Figures vary but its estimated between 8-20m people were killed by Stalin.

This is the problem with Communism, and it essentially involves removing the freedoms from the humans for the 100 years until Communism is established, and there is very little I won't do to hold onto my freedoms.

[EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen]

I'm a fan of it, on paper. The problem with it is that Humans are Humans. Whether or not its for the good of a country, I don't think you could find a doctor willing to be paid the same as a welder or something of that degree. I like its equal world ideas but this business of separating the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is kind of misleading because I thikn we can all agree that if the roles were switched the people that were getting screwed would still throw a fit. Thats why I'm a hardcore socialist because I think it blends the best of both worlds, free market innovation and drive with a catch all safety net for the less fortunate.

[CodeCat]

It's a misconception that I support 100% equality without any room for difference. Diversity is a good thing and trying to eliminate it is just as bad as you're forcing people to be the same. People are not the same, but they are equal in value and deserve equal opportunities in so far as they are able to affect their own chances. What this means is that people should not be treated differently or have different chances of success based on anything other than their own actions. So it should not matter whether someone is born into a different family, different race, is more skilled at manual labour, has less mental capacity, has a learning disability, has a physical disability, is paralysed from the neck down, etc. What it comes down to is that people are to be treated equally and we should not draw borders and categories between them based on criteria they can't control. We should not penalise those who can't work as hard, but only those who can work and refuse to.

Furthermore, an unfortunate side of modern capitalism is the focus on self-enrichment, which leads to people keeping all their profits for themselves rather than letting all of society benefit from them. Many supporters of it say that people should have the right to reap the rewards of their own work, and I do agree with that. But while working harder should be rewarded, we should always be critical of the kind of rewards we hand out, and we should always reward based on how much their work is a service to society. No matter how many goals a footballer scores, his work should never give more reward than an ER surgeon who saves lives on a daily basis.

Another issue is that the differences have become too great, and when people are 'sitting on their profits' without doing anything useful, then that's when problems arise. Too many people have the means to help others, but instead decide to enrich only themselves. 'We are all in this together' is my view, and if people have the means to be of service to society but are unwilling to provide that service, then that should be equated with those who refuse to work despite being able. This should therefore be penalised appropriately through taxing or other means, until the difference has been reduced sufficiently. Income tax does help towards this goal, but it is more important to ensure people can't build up excessive wealth when others need it harder.

[CommanderJB]

To be honest, while I think a better world is achievable, a non-Capitalist world is not. Competition, dominance and personal gain are wired into us as part of our very being. Everyone is selfish (or at the very least you will never get a society of Mother Theresas). While equality of opportunity is achievable, equality of society is not. We've come a long way from the feudal system, and I don't claim that we can never have a classless society, but from my heavily limited understanding of communism, its basic ideals of a state in which nothing is owned and everything is shared goes heavily contrary to a human ethic of personal care gained over thousands of years of civilisation in which the rich thrive at the expense of the poor. I will accept that it may be as much an issue of me being forced to face the unattractive prospect of giving up my possessions to some nameless, formless, definition-less mega-community as it is my understanding of human nature, but something will have to change fundamentally in the modern outlook for it ever to have even the hope of its tenets (some of which, of course, are indeed not so bad) being adopted in any large proportion.
Not to mention the dictator approach is all but impossible these days. Karl Marx never had to deal with the internet and mobile phones.

[Zero]

However, what I wanted this post to be about is its ideals. I like the base ideal, a world without money. The problem with a Capitalist world is that makes people greedy and... well, that ends in war and conflict. I like it on paper, although I do know that this will never be achieved in real life. Also, despite the lack of money and social status, there will still be enough space to allow humans to compete and to progress. I don't necessarily agree with the part of dictatorship at first but I do with the banning of religion, although only as it applies to the state as religion has hindered SO much scientific progress that its not even worth scoffing at. If anyone needs an elaboration let me know.

[Dauth]

Topic reopened, do not comment on the removed content.

[EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen]

was it the morality stuff? because i had a point on that...just checking because i don't wanna post something thats gonna get the topic locked again

[Dr. Strangelove]

Anything that works on paper does in real life. If it there is a discrepancy between paper and real life it is because someone did the work on the paper did something wrong, because the whole point of doing something on paper is that it reflects real life.

In a rational world, like the one nature has provided us, the better someone is at x, the more they benefit from x, if the are not good at x, they will not receive x's benefits. This is a critical part of what sustains a rational life.

Communism attempts to create an irrational environment, where the worse someone is at x, the more they receive its benefits and vice versa. This can only be accomplished with a group of people, and it is not sustainable. It requires that there are some people who are good at x to donate/be coerced out of the benefits of x so it can be given to the people who do not produce the benefits of x. Eventually, the people who are good at x either die because they don't have the benefits of x that they need to survive, or they start being bad at x so they can cannibalize people who are still good at x.

Substitute x for any skill central to an industry and you have the total collapse of that industry. Let's say x is farming, then you have world wide starvation and holocaust as the few holdouts who still are good at farming hide and hoard their food from the threat of the starving mob.

You probably get the picture by now.

Communism is immoral not only because it hinders human survival which is necessary for communism to exist(it is a self destructive practice), but it goes against reason itself.

Don't believe me? Look at every country that ever tried communism/socialism. Even the current economic crisis reflects how much damage even limited regulation of the market by the government can do.

[CodeCat]

In a rational world, like the one nature provided us, the better someone is at x, the more the community benefits from x. If they are not good at x, then there will always be someone who is, but they are however good at y. There are also many more skills than x and y, and each skill has a certain subset of people that are good at it.

Communism attempts to create an rational environment, where the worse someone is at x, the more that person is supported by those who are good at x, and in turn that person supports the others by doing y. This can only be accomplished with a group of people, but as humans have a natural tendency to live in groups, it is sustainable. It requires that there are some people who are good at x to donate/be coerced out of the benefits of x so it can be given to the people who do not produce the benefits of x, but as a reward they get the benefits of y too, which they would not normally be able to receive. Eventually, the people who are good at x but refuse to share their benefits will either die because they don't have the benefits of y that they need to survive, or they start being good at y so they can be of further service to the community, while still depending on others for z.

Capitalism attempts to create an irrational environment, where the better someone is at x, the less benefit others receive of that work. In turn, groups form of people who are only good at x and nothing else, but since everyone else depends on x, that group is able to extort everyone else because everyone has to cooperate, for if they don't they don't get x and die.

[Dr. Strangelove]

*cracks knuckles*

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:32, said:

In a rational world, like the one nature provided us, the better someone is at x, the more the community benefits from x.

Communities are artificial constructs.

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:32, said:

If they are not good at x, then there will always be someone who is, but they are however good at y. There are also many more skills than x and y, and each skill has a certain subset of people that are good at it.

Some people just don't have any ability or initiative period.

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:32, said:

Communism attempts to create an rational environment, where the worse someone is at x, the more that person is supported by those who are good at x,and in turn that person supports the others by doing y.

That happens in capitalism, except of instead of being rewarded for being bad at x, they are rewarded for being good at y, which in no way depends on whether or not someone is good at x.

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:32, said:

This can only be accomplished with a group of people, but as humans have a natural tendency to live in groups, it is sustainable. It requires that there are some people who are good at x to donate/be coerced out of the benefits of x

If the achievement of an end requires the use of immoral means, the end is immoral.

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:32, said:

so it can be given to the people who do not produce the benefits of x, but as a reward they get the benefits of y too, which they would not normally be able to receive. Eventually, the people who are good at x but refuse to share their benefits will either die because they don't have the benefits of y that they need to survive, or they start being good at y so they can be of further service to the community, while still depending on others for z.

Capitalism attempts to create an irrational environment, where the better someone is at x, the less benefit others receive of that work.

You receive exactly the same benefit from someone else's work that they're not sharing with you whether it is horrible or brilliant.

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:32, said:

In turn, groups form of people who are only good at x and nothing else, but since everyone else depends on x, that group is able to extort everyone else because everyone has to cooperate, for if they don't they don't get x and die.

Extortion is the use of force to acquire something. Someone who hoards a commodity is not forcing anybody else to do anything. If those people without that commodity can't live on their own means, they don't deserve to live.

[CodeCat]

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:50, said:

Communities are artificial constructs.

Herds of cows, packs of wolves. Communities in their natural form. Enough said.

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:50, said:

Some people just don't have any ability or initiative period.

Everyone has ability, but not everyone wants to use it. I have no problems with penalising those who are able but refuse.

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:50, said:

That happens in capitalism, except of instead of being rewarded for being bad at x, they are rewarded for being good at y, which in no way depends on whether or not someone is good at x.

Communism works that way too.

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:50, said:

If the achievement of an end requires the use of immoral means, the end is immoral.

Morality is not a rational argument as it cannot be falsified.

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:50, said:

You receive exactly the same benefit from someone else's work that they're not sharing with you whether it is horrible or brilliant.

Explain, please.

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:50, said:

Extortion is the use of force to acquire something. Someone who hoards a commodity is not forcing anybody else to do anything. If those people without that commodity can't live on their own means, they don't deserve to live.

You just condemned millions of people to death and sanctioned genocide. I ought to ban you for that, cause if you can't run a forum by your own means you don't deserve to be here. But I guess I won't, because I believe everyone deserves better than that.

[Dr. Strangelove]

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:24, said:

Herds of cows, packs of wolves. Communities in their natural form. Enough said.

With one big difference. Animals don't have free will.

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:24, said:

Everyone has ability, but not everyone wants to use it. I have no problems with penalising those who are able but refuse.

Are you going to penalize them or not reward them. There is a big difference.

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:24, said:

Communism works that way too.

Are we talking about the same thing here?

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:24, said:

Morality is not a rational argument as it cannot be falsified.

You probably think that because the only morality you've ever adhered to wasn't based on reason.

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:24, said:

Explain, please.

If I make a million dollars and I don't give it to you you are in exactly the same position as if I never made the money in the first place.

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:24, said:

You just condemned millions of people to death and sanctioned genocide. I ought to ban you for that, cause if you can't run a forum by your own means you don't deserve to be here. But I guess I won't, because I believe everyone deserves better than that.

That's your decision.

[Zero]

First of all, who are YOU to say animals have no free will. You're not a god, nor an animal.... so.....?

Secondly, the means-to-an-end, bad=bad. No, two examples:
WWII:We killed MILLIONs of people, in just 6/7 years. In the end, however, the means were good, putting 3-5 tyrants out of power. Still, we killed MILLIONs, and murder, no matter what the explanation, is evil and bad.
Nuke: Used it to end WWII, killed thousands and revealed nukes to the world, starting the age of terror known as the Cold War.
Usually, the only way for things to happen for the better are for one to use the most effective means possible, good or bad, and in the end hope that it will end up for the better, or the way you planned it.

And as for labor. Simply put, it would be MUCH more fair. A world of Communism would be, in essence, a world without money and that would mean that ALL people are able to enjoy the fruits of life. Although this shortens the gap of equality by a lot, it still leaves a LOT of space for people to compete: status, fame, and recognition, as well as that except monitarily, NO ONE would be equal and there will still be people better than you at at LEAST ONE thing than you.

[EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen]

In all honesty. Communism has never been applied rationally. They were mostly corrupt command economies with a more dictatorship than a parliament. Also, paper IS hugely different than real life. Its the whole "if-then" statement. If human nature was a little different then perfect communism wouldn't work. Now we can all say what government types are moral/immoral because its a matter of opinion. The guy who says dictatorships are moral is going to hate democracies. But IMO Communism isn't an immoral system because it supplies every single person a means to an end. Produce what you can, take what you need is the theory that people will ultimately try to better the community as whole (i.e. COMMUNism) and that they will not be greedy and only take what they need. Its arguable that communism is much better for third-world nations because it rallies the entire population rather than a select few, creating the rich/poor gap from the start. It can also be argued that this is how man began civilization due to this and that in order for our species to survive, competing (capitalsim) would have driven us to extinction.

[Zero]

I agree with you, Communism, WAS NEVER USED AS INTENDED. Also, paper and real life aren't the same, for example, flying bumblebees (on paper, flight should be impossible)

[Dauth]

Moderator instruction:

Zero, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:04, said:

flying bumblebees (on paper, flight should be impossible)

This is an urban legend and it would suit you to research before you comment on things. The very simple method calculated did not include vortices nor a dozen other factors, when air is treated as it should be, then the bumblebee can fly.

Zero you are arguing a general view and not bring in specifics to back up your argument, which is turn is why your posts are being largely ignored by the other users. Find evidence and make points.

Strangelove and CodeCat, I'm enjoying this debate and the fact you are both coming back with more points and arguments is good, keep it up .

[Zero]

Fine, I was trying to keep it brief& general because I'm getting ready for church, but if you wish it, I will be SPECIFIC.

Okay, first I will regard to Dauth: I understand that. However, that was the same point I was trying to point out, that the ONLY times when everything will ALWAYS be factored in is in real life. On paper, we can crunch numbers and we might get close or even hit the spot, but that rarely happens. My example was the Bumblebee, which, on paper which didn't include the vortex properties of its flight, should have not been able to fly. You can argue the same for Communism; on paper it seems like a good system, however, in real life it has never worked (and I also doubt it ever will) because Marx seemingly forgot to factor in: human greed, lust for power, and ambition, three out of the MANY things that limit this form of government.

Unlike capitalism, which encourages people to try to rise to power for themselves and claim power for themselves; Communism talked more about giving up power, handing it over for a while, and dissolving it. Of course, this means that there can ONLY be ONE ruling party at a time; and what do the greedy bastards on top do? Simple, the same any capitalist would do, try to frame the power to their own cause and agenda. Of course, however, the leader of the ruling party has MUCH more power than that of a capitalist country as capitalism usually exists in relatively liberal governments and thrives in democracy, therefore many leaders are encouraged and usually many exist; therefore VERY effectively limiting what they can do because their plans usually interfere with somebody else's agenda. Communism, however, is different, it gives almost complete power to ONE party, and one-or a few- people. This Oligarchy, share pretty much the same goal, so instead of being Democrats and Republicans, there are only Republicans which can do WHATEVER they wish to get their goals accomplished, as they have been given almost limitless power by the people, and only a mass revolt can TRULY remove them from power (Which is why I said that the ideals are just as important as the utilization in this thread).

Next, I will expand on my previous posts, and I hope that this provided enough of an explanation. Please, ask any questions you have.

[Dauth]

My point is that anything derived on paper if complex enough will mirror reality, it may take an awful long time to calculate but it can be done. This is the principle of doing theory before an experiment.

Your point about what the Communist party does shows that you are not opposing the ideas, more the idea of someone (who isn't you) being given absolute power. Talking of absolute power, there are 4 people on this forum with it, hasn't worked out too badly all things considered. There are also examples of when people have turned down the prospect of absolute power. Juan Carlos I decided not to rule as a monarch after the death of Franco, but instead helped form a democracy (yes its a crude example which doesn't befit the detail but is in essence correct).

[Zero]

However, those people who give up such power (such as George Washington in the US), usually are relatively selfless people, either that or they don't want to get involved in politics and get corrupted. That takes a lot of courage to do, and most people are not that courageous nor are they that self-less. Sure, some people CAN do it, but I sure know I can't, I would go mad with power, I need someone to keep me in check. Capitalism's system works, but I also like Communism's evolved system (the point in time in which people rule themselves). Although, again, this probably will never happen and if it does, it'll be a few million years from now when we are MUCH more selfless. So although sometimes people DO turn down absolute power, it happens VERY rarely compared to those who become dictators and tyrants.

About the forum, I agree, but again, this forum is more-or-less of a capitalist/democratic forum. Again, four people share the absolute power, not exactly what happens in a Communism.

And finally, about the "concept on paper" thing. I never said that it does, however, it is relatively rare that ALL the needed things will be taken into account, even in the most complex situations, even then, mistakes also happen not-too-rarely. The only time where your results will ALWAYS be right is when you test it out in real life as ALL laws are constant and ALWAYS occurs. Also, in some cases (especially in architecture, engineering, and so on), it is sometimes easier, faster, and cheaper (and therefore more efficient) to test something than to finish EVERY SINGLE LAST CALCULATION "needed." Also, the ONLY way to discover new forces that you may not know about is to test, and sometimes you may find out you forgot to factor something in. Sure, when ALL factors are factored in, it goes fine, however, you don't always know ALL the factors and acting forces.

[CodeCat]

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 13:35, said:

With one big difference. Animals don't have free will.

Again, unfalsifiable with current methods as we can't look into the minds of others. Not yet, at least. So this argument is void. However on the basis of belief alone I strongly disagree with you.

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 13:35, said:

Are you going to penalize them or not reward them. There is a big difference.

Not necessarily. If I were to stop giving something that you've always been given, then it would be a penalty as the definition of penalty is a change which is experienced to the receiver as unwelcome.

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 13:35, said:

Are we talking about the same thing here?

Probably not, but I've given up trying to convince you that you're making a straw man argument.

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 13:35, said:

You probably think that because the only morality you've ever adhered to wasn't based on reason.

Ad hominem attack, yet another fallacy. But in any case, the source of my morals is irrelevant as they are my morals alone, they have no business in other people's lives. The same applies to yours.

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 13:35, said:

If I make a million dollars and I don't give it to you you are in exactly the same position as if I never made the money in the first place.

No, because in the first case, I would live in poverty knowing that the means exist to make my life better, while in the second case I would not know.

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 13:35, said:

That's your decision.

Yes, but it's also your decision.

[Mr. Mylo]

Communism is a political and economical system I don't support. It's goal is it to make everyone in the whole state equal,
which means that every individual has the same rights, duties and the same salaries as everybody else.
The first two aspects mentioned are good basics for a functional politcal system, but the last one doesn't seem to be fair or realisable.
Getting paid the same ammount of money for totally different jobs does not fit in todays society.
I wouldn't want to study medicine several years for getting paid the same amount as someone who didn't. Every human aims for beeing more successful than others
and every enterpriser tries to motivate his employees with more holidays, money or other social things compared to others to make his enterprise more successful and moreover to gain more money for himself.
Without having a chance to motivate workers the enterprise won’t be as efficient as in other
non communistic systems.
With having that in mind we can say that a communistic state has an unefficient economy and won’t stay globally competitive.

I wouldn’t like to live in a system where I get forced to be as everybody else, I am an individual and I want to be treated like one. This is not possible in the system of communism.

Edited by Mr. Mylo, 07 December 2008 - 17:26.

[CodeCat]

Mr. Mylo, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:26, said:

Communism is a political and economical system I don't support. It's goal is it to make everyone in the whole state equal, which means that every individual has the same rights, duties

Yes.

Mr. Mylo, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:26, said:

and the same salaries

No.

[EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen]

Dauth, you just compared the functioning of a forum to the functioning of an entire nation and its economic powers. You can't hardly call that rational

Still on the paper theory:

Life has almost limitless variables and things like economies usually have more. The way the global market functions has no start and no finish, theres not way to logically write EVERYTHING on a document because these variables change by the minute. I doubt anyone truly understands every aspect of global economics enough for anyone to say that one system is unquestionably better than another.

As I stated before, communism (the economic system, not government) is a great system for very poor regions and places that cannot hope to succeed with competition. Hence: ancient man. Does anyone truly think that the ancient man, and by that I mean dawn of civilization, before currently recorded history, could have survived if everyone in the tribe/village was competing with one another? No, they would have driven themselves to extinction. Communism doesn't work on already developed economies because they can sustain competition and are better off by it. In communism, people are supposed to know "their place" and work for the betterment of the group as that member of their place.

@ CodeCat great call on the logical fallacy, I recently took a test on them in my English Composition class

Edited by EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, 07 December 2008 - 18:22.

[CodeCat]

I don't see communism as something that can be achieved, in that there's a point where you say 'this is communism'. Rather it's a struggle that we must always strive to work towards. The point is that rather than becoming complacent when there is no competition, we should realise that the greatest thing to compete against is our own desire to be selfish, and the damage we do to others when we give in to it. In that sense, communism is more than just an economic theory, it's also a psychological ideology not unlike the African philosophy of ubuntu: 'we are who we are because of who we all are'. It's therefore probably best to realise that communism isn't a goal, it's a direction.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Zero, on 7 Dec 2008, 14:42, said:

First of all, who are YOU to say animals have no free will. You're not a god, nor an animal.... so.....?

And as for labor. Simply put, it would be MUCH more fair. A world of Communism would be, in essence, a world without money and that would mean that ALL people are able to enjoy the fruits of life. Although this shortens the gap of equality by a lot, it still leaves a LOT of space for people to compete: status, fame, and recognition, as well as that except monitarily, NO ONE would be equal and there will still be people better than you at at LEAST ONE thing than you.

I think animals don't have free will because they cannot knowingly commit suicide like humans can.

The Aristocracy of Pull does not work on any of the principles that apply to The Aristocracy of Wealth.

EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:00, said:

In all honesty. Communism has never been applied rationally.

Because communism is inherently irrational.

EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:00, said:

They were mostly corrupt command economies with a more dictatorship than a parliament.

It's still the same mob rule.

EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:00, said:

Also, paper IS hugely different than real life.

That's a problem, because paper is intended to reflect real life.

EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:00, said:

Its the whole "if-then" statement. If human nature was a little different then perfect communism wouldn't work. Now we can all say what government types are moral/immoral because its a matter of opinion.

Morality is objective.

EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:00, said:

The guy who says dictatorships are moral is going to hate democracies. But IMO Communism isn't an immoral system because it supplies every single person a means to an end. Produce what you can, take what you need is the theory that people will ultimately try to better the community as whole (i.e. COMMUNism) and that they will not be greedy and only take what they need. Its arguable that communism is much better for third-world nations because it rallies the entire population rather than a select few, creating the rich/poor gap from the start. It can also be argued that this is how man began civilization due to this and that in order for our species to survive, competing (capitalsim) would have driven us to extinction.

What is the 'community'?

Zero, on 7 Dec 2008, 16:02, said:

Okay, first I will regard to Dauth: I understand that. However, that was the same point I was trying to point out, that the ONLY times when everything will ALWAYS be factored in is in real life. On paper, we can crunch numbers and we might get close or even hit the spot, but that rarely happens. My example was the Bumblebee, which, on paper which didn't include the vortex properties of its flight, should have not been able to fly. You can argue the same for Communism; on paper it seems like a good system, however, in real life it has never worked (and I also doubt it ever will) because Marx seemingly forgot to factor in: human greed, lust for power, and ambition, three out of the MANY things that limit this form of government.

The power of the producer and the 'power' of the looter are two completely different things.

Zero, on 7 Dec 2008, 16:55, said:

However, those people who give up such power (such as George Washington in the US), usually are relatively selfless people, either that or they don't want to get involved in politics and get corrupted. That takes a lot of courage to do, and most people are not that courageous nor are they that self-less. Sure, some people CAN do it, but I sure know I can't, I would go mad with power, I need someone to keep me in check. Capitalism's system works, but I also like Communism's evolved system (the point in time in which people rule themselves). Although, again, this probably will never happen and if it does, it'll be a few million years from now when we are MUCH more selfless. So although sometimes people DO turn down absolute power, it happens VERY rarely compared to those who become dictators and tyrants.

A truly selfish person would leave office because they do not to rely on other people's efforts to get what they want to get done done. A selfless person, however, would need to be in office because they can't do things on their own accord and thus have to extort the means out of other people.

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 16:57, said:

Again, unfalsifiable with current methods as we can't look into the minds of others. Not yet, at least. So this argument is void. However on the basis of belief alone I strongly disagree with you.

You never, ever see an animal knowingly do something detrimental to it's survival, whereas in humans it occurs all of the time.

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 16:57, said:

Ad hominem attack, yet another fallacy. But in any case, the source of my morals is irrelevant as they are my morals alone, they have no business in other people's lives. The same applies to yours.

1: It is only ad hominem in world where no objective, reason centric morality exists.

2: Whether you choose to accept it or not, my morality applies to everybody.

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 16:57, said:

No, because in the first case, I would live in poverty knowing that the means exist to make my life better, while in the second case I would not know.

You're still in poverty either way.

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:07, said:

Mr. Mylo, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:26, said:

and the same salaries

No.

And yet you seek to take from the rich and give to the poor.

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:33, said:

I don't see communism as something that can be achieved, in that there's a point where you say 'this is communism'. Rather it's a struggle that we must always strive to work towards.

So you are admitting that your ideals are fundamentally impossible?

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:33, said:

The point is that rather than becoming complacent when there is no competition, we should realise that the greatest thing to compete against is our own desire to be selfish, and the damage we do to others when we give in to it.

How much damage do I do to you if I invent something brilliant and make a billion dollars?

CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:33, said:

'we are who we are because of who we all are'

Where does the identity of the 'all' come from?