Communism
Dauth 04 Dec 2008
Quote
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 04 Dec 2008
CodeCat 04 Dec 2008
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 04 Dec 2008
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 04 Dec 2008
EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen 07 Dec 2008
Dr. Strangelove 07 Dec 2008
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 07 Dec 2008
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 07 Dec 2008
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:32, said:
Communities are artificial constructs.
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:32, said:
Some people just don't have any ability or initiative period.
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:32, 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.
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:32, said:
If the achievement of an end requires the use of immoral means, the end is immoral.
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:32, said:
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:
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 07 Dec 2008
Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:50, said:
Herds of cows, packs of wolves. Communities in their natural form. Enough said.
Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:50, said:
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:
Communism works that way too.
Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:50, said:
Morality is not a rational argument as it cannot be falsified.
Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:50, said:
Explain, please.
Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:50, 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.
Dr. Strangelove 07 Dec 2008
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:24, said:
With one big difference. Animals don't have free will.
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:24, said:
Are you going to penalize them or not reward them. There is a big difference.
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:24, said:
Are we talking about the same thing here?
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 12:24, said:
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:
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:
That's your decision.
Zero 07 Dec 2008
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 07 Dec 2008
Zero 07 Dec 2008
Dauth 07 Dec 2008
Zero, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:04, said:
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 07 Dec 2008
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 07 Dec 2008
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 07 Dec 2008
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 07 Dec 2008
Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 13:35, 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.
Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Dec 2008, 13:35, said:
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:
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:
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:
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:
Yes, but it's also your decision.
Mr. Mylo 07 Dec 2008
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 07 Dec 2008
EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen 07 Dec 2008
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 07 Dec 2008
Dr. Strangelove 07 Dec 2008
Zero, on 7 Dec 2008, 14:42, said:
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:
Because communism is inherently irrational.
EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:00, said:
It's still the same mob rule.
EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:00, said:
That's a problem, because paper is intended to reflect real life.
EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:00, said:
Morality is objective.
EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:00, said:
What is the 'community'?
Zero, on 7 Dec 2008, 16:02, said:
The power of the producer and the 'power' of the looter are two completely different things.
Zero, on 7 Dec 2008, 16:55, said:
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:
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:
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:
You're still in poverty either way.
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:07, said:
And yet you seek to take from the rich and give to the poor.
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:33, said:
So you are admitting that your ideals are fundamentally impossible?
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:33, said:
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:
Where does the identity of the 'all' come from?