CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Everybody is equal, but the people who rule the party are more equal than others. Communism can't work because it demands robot-like obedience from everybody. It's human nature to question authority.
It is the ultimate invasion of the state into the affairs of the citizen. A man may neither own his own home nor freely expand his own wealth. This is completely unfair and unrealistic. One need only look at the former U.S.S.R to see that communism can never work. It is perhaps the most ridiculous economic system I have ever heard of. Some people (usually poor people) like to cling to it because of a perceived inequality in capitalistic society. There is an equality of sorts in communism - the equality of poverty, where every man is as poor as the next.
It is the ultimate invasion of the state into the affairs of the citizen. A man may neither own his own home nor freely expand his own wealth. This is completely unfair and unrealistic. One need only look at the former U.S.S.R to see that communism can never work. It is perhaps the most ridiculous economic system I have ever heard of. Some people (usually poor people) like to cling to it because of a perceived inequality in capitalistic society. There is an equality of sorts in communism - the equality of poverty, where every man is as poor as the next.
What you fail to consider in your assumptions is that some people exist who do not desire a personal home or wealth. These are not merely poor people, but nomadic people, sometimes humanitarians. There's also the more important consideration that if the state can provide completely for its people, then personal wealth and property have no meaning anymore. The people may focus on other things, perhaps self-betterment.
I actually really like this statement here. Honestly, I don't mind sharing. The only form of security I really need is a bed and a roof. There are a lot of people out there who really don't like the whole gung-ho idea of needing to have a very strong singular identity, especially in a world where everyone is fighting to have that same identity. The fact is, there are other ways to build an identity, and objects, money, and the perseverance of a glimmer of power are all bitter things, and things we should work against. That's why communism is appealing to some people. People who want communism want to take out the whole idea of self perfection through amassing physical things and titles for oneself. I support that. I just wish it was easier to make that possible.
What you fail to consider in your assumptions is that some people exist who do not desire a personal home or wealth.
I have yet to meet any group of such people of sufficient size to maintain a nation, besides the Irish, of whom 85% are essentially communists.
There's also the more important consideration that if the state can provide completely for its people, then personal wealth and property have no meaning anymore.
The state can never properly provide for its people. As a general rule, socialism can produce millions of tons of iron for tanks, but struggles to make basic household goods and luxuries.
The people may focus on other things, perhaps self-betterment.
Self-betterment made possible by those who do all the hard work. In a communist society, the upper cadre of academics slave to support a vast underclass, for no extra reward, other than the knowledge that they are perpetuating their own misery. And they would be miserable, considering communists' hatred for intellectuals (though this has never stopped them enjoying the fruits of said intellectuals' labours).
I have yet to meet any group of such people of sufficient size to maintain a nation, besides the Irish, of whom 85% are essentially communists.
It is how many indigenous humans live and have lived for thousands of years. However your argument is one from ignorance, you don't know of a large group so you assume that none exists or that one didn't exist in the past.
The state can never properly provide for its people. As a general rule, socialism can produce millions of tons of iron for tanks, but struggles to make basic household goods and luxuries.
Really? So we lack the machinery to produce ample food that can feed hundreds of millions? We lack medicine to provide basic healthcare? We cannot produce clean water in quantities to sustain tens of millions of people in an area? We have no ability to produce hundreds of megawatts of power? We don't have presses that can print millions of pages per day or even hour?
We have the technology, what we presently lack is it being assembled in a way that is conducive to everybody. It is, predictably, under control of the wealthy, the powerful, the well-connected.
Self-betterment made possible by those who do all the hard work. In a communist society, the upper cadre of academics slave to support a vast underclass, for no extra reward, other than the knowledge that they are perpetuating their own misery. And they would be miserable, considering communists' hatred for intellectuals (though this has never stopped them enjoying the fruits of said intellectuals' labours).
Do not negate the premise. If a society is provided for, then there is no meaning to having special rewards that somehow raise you above others in power or status.
All you're arguing for is the ability to be more powerful or wealthy than others, you're not making an argument for why we cannot set a standard of living so that no one must want for any of the essentials of life.
It is how many indigenous humans live and have lived for thousands of years.
We have made progress since then.
However your argument is one from ignorance, you don't know of a large group so you assume that none exists
Can you name a large group?
or that one didn't exist in the past.
I have not made that assertion.
Really? So we lack the machinery to produce ample food that can feed hundreds of millions? We lack medicine to provide basic healthcare? We cannot produce clean water in quantities to sustain tens of millions of people in an area?
The first two things are all provided by private industry. There are frequently water shortages, however. That is the only one handled by the state. Coincidence?
We have no ability to produce hundreds of megawatts of power?
I recall the only nuclear meltdown in history occurred in a communist state.
We have the technology, what we presently lack is it being assembled in a way that is conducive to everybody.
In a way that makes everybody more likely to happen? That makes no sense to me.
It is, predictably, under control of the wealthy, the powerful, the well-connected.
That is because they paid for it. Communists just want to steal things from those who have maid something of themselves.
If a society is provided for, then there is no meaning to having special rewards that somehow raise you above others in power or status.
Communist societies are never properly provided for.
All you're arguing for is the ability to be more powerful or wealthy than others
I see no problem with this.
you're not making an argument for why we cannot set a standard of living so that no one must want for any of the essentials of life.
That is not my intent. My intent is to show that communism cannot create such circumstances.
Which has no bearing on it being able to exist, in large populations.
Can you name a large group?
I already did, I named nomads, and indigenous peoples.
The first two things are all provided by private industry. There are frequently water shortages, however. That is the only one handled by the state. Coincidence?
I recall the only nuclear meltdown in history occurred in a communist state.
Not really important to the discussion.
The point is that we have the technology.
In a way that makes everybody more likely to happen? That makes no sense to me.
You mistyped the sentence and I don't know what you mean. Please retype.
That is because they paid for it. Communists just want to steal things from those who have maid something of themselves.
I tend to blank out at "that's our/my stuff!" arguments. We're talking about the welfare of a society, which obviously trumps individuals in these types of trite cases.
Communist societies are never properly provided for.
Careful mate, you are making an absolute statement from a small sample dataset.
I see no problem with this.
Of course you don't, you keep missing the premise of the discussion.
That is not my intent. My intent is to show that communism cannot create such circumstances.
Which you've failed at thus far. Your principal argument is "These communist countries failed therefore communism doesn't or cannot work [in all cases]" followed by "I don't like what communism leads to [in these societies where it was implemented] therefore it doesn't work."
Come now, you can make stronger arguments. I've seen you do it in other debates.
Which has no bearing on it being able to exist, in large populations.
My point was that using historic instances of systems does not devalue newer ones.
I already did, I named nomads, and indigenous peoples.
Ah yes, economic powerhouse of the world, the Gobi Desert.
Not really important to the discussion.
The point is that we have the technology.
My point is that state "planners" are inept at handling the technology. See my recent response to mahollinder for details on economic failure linked to planners.
You mistyped the sentence and I don't know what you mean. Please retype.
No, you used the wrong word. Conducive means to make something more likely to happen. Hence conducive to everybody...extrapolate. Perhaps you meant it to mean helps. That is not what is meant by the definition promote or assist. The definition refers to an outcome.
I tend to blank out at "that's our/my stuff!" arguments. We're talking about the welfare of a society, which obviously trumps individuals in these types of trite cases.
If you cared about the the welfare of society, you would be (ironically) a capitalist. (The following is pasted from another argument, I'm not typing it again) Governments are inept at controlling industry. The soviets produced millions of tons of steel, but struggled to provide basic household goods. In a capitalist society, what is in demand is profitable and is therefore made in such a quantity as meets that demand. In a communist (for the sake of argument) society, the "needs" of the state often come before those of the people. That is why soviet Russia had thousands of tractors, but suffered from widespread starvation (1932). To exacerbate this, farmers were evicted or imprisoned for failing to meet unrealistic quotas, set by people with little or no understanding of agriculture (EU quota systems failed as well).Then by 1937, soviet steel and coal production was given priority, in a bid to outmatch Germany. As a result, the quality of life deteriorated as planners ignored consumers. Military equipment was overproduced, whilst consumer goods dropped in both quality and quantity. Skip past many more failures (I don't want to take up too much of your time) to the early eighties. By then, the U.S.S.R is was being outproduced agriculturally by the U.S. As a result, the U.S.S.R was forced to import millions of tons of grain to support its population, because of all the fuck-ups (excuse me) in agriculture. In brief, "planners" who know nothing about supply and demand, were given complete control over all aspects of industry and, naturally, messed up the most basic supply: food.
Careful mate, you are making an absolute statement from a small sample dataset.
I am making a conclusion based on the historical evidence. Anything else is conjecture.
Of course you don't, you keep missing the premise of the discussion.
Its my premise. Any misunderstanding is yours, which is my fault if I posted an inappropriate title. By "work" I mean:
a) In the case of "true" communism, it is not achievable.
b) In the case of what is commonly perceived to be communism, it is not economically viable.
So tell me, why should people not be allowed to make as much money as they can, through their own abilities, and why should lesser people be supported by them (and we are not born equal)?
These communist countries failed therefore communism doesn't or cannot work [in all cases]" followed by "I don't like what communism leads to [in these societies where it was implemented] therefore it doesn't work."
Whereas yours is Though all present evidence points to communism being non-viable, I maintain that communism is theoretically viable and therefore is in reality viable. I do not like the inherent inequality in capitalism, therefore communism is superior to it.
Come now, you can make stronger arguments. I've seen you do it in other debates.
My point was that using historic instances of systems does not devalue newer ones.
I never argued that it [they] did. I argued that they exist.
My point is that state "planners" are inept at handling the technology. See my recent response to mahollinder for details on economic failure linked to planners.
Right. This is more of a government and committee thing rather than something directly tied to communism.
No, you used the wrong word. Conducive means to make something more likely to happen. Hence conducive to everybody...extrapolate. Perhaps you meant it to mean helps. That is not what is meant by the definition promote or assist. The definition refers to an outcome.
Mein Englisch tells me that conducive means helpful in addition to contributing and so forth. Look it up in a dictionary.
If you cared about the the welfare of society, you would be (ironically) a capitalist. (The following is pasted from another argument, I'm not typing it again) Governments are inept at controlling industry.
I think the last two major oil spills this year provide strong enough evidence that capitalism doesn't inherently regulate itself in a way that cares for the welfare of society.
But let's also look at Global Warming, and the capitalists' desire to keep selling oil at the risk of severely harming our species decades or even centuries in the future. How about the fact that golden rice, a genetically enhanced food designed to provide better nutrition to poor countries failed in part because the capitalists copyrighted and trademarked all sorts of genetic engineering technologies, creating all sorts of red tape to clear before a humanitarian product like this can even enter the market. Then there's company lobbying of governments that undermines democracy so that the capitalists can sell their product a little longer. How about the simple fact that medicine would be dirt cheap in America if not for the fact that so many medicines are patented for years (even genes in our bodies are patented) and so there is a huge overhead in costs to patients. How about the little things, like you hardly see any Japanese games hit the American or Western markets because their games often have lots of intellectual property tangles that are a real headache to sort out overseas. I could go on, but I think I sufficiently made the argument that capitalism most certainly doesn't care for the public's welfare, our welfare is incidental, not a primary concern.
In brief, "planners" who know nothing about supply and demand, were given complete control over all aspects of industry and, naturally, messed up the most basic supply: food.
You answered yourself for me with this sentence. If you have a government with poor planning, you'll get cock-ups, irrespective of capitalist or communist economy.
I am making a conclusion based on the historical evidence. Anything else is conjecture.
Maybe you should research inductive versus deductive reasoning. This discussion is about conjecture anyway.
Its my premise. Any misunderstanding is yours, which is my fault if I posted an inappropriate title. By "work" I mean:
a) In the case of "true" communism, it is not achievable.
b) In the case of what is commonly perceived to be communism, it is not economically viable.
The premise I was mentioning was that we are assuming a society where everybody's basic needs are provided for (food, housing, education, and health). You kept breaking this premise by asserting that strife would exist due to lack of sufficient needs being met, or one group not getting enough rewards, etc.
So tell me, why should people not be allowed to make as much money as they can, through their own abilities, and why should lesser people be supported by them (and we are not born equal)?
Isn't it obvious? Disparate wealth creates power gaps, allows one group to ultimately rule over another, creates envy and jealously, and allows for one group to take up a limited resource that could benefit those in poverty.
It is ultimately in our best interests to have even wealth so as to severely curb many of the social problems stemming from disparate living conditions.
Whereas yours is Though all present evidence points to communism being non-viable, I maintain that communism is theoretically viable and therefore is in reality viable. I do not like the inherent inequality in capitalism, therefore communism is superior to it.
I thought you'd be more perceptive than that. I am arguing for the possible ways that communism could work, nothing more.
I never argued that it [they] did. I argued that they exist.
Not in sufficient quantity to support the notion that large scale communism can work.
Right. This is more of a government and committee thing rather than something directly tied to communism.
Communism gives all power to the government and its endless committees. This is a bad thing.
Mein Englisch tells me that conducive means helpful in addition to contributing and so forth. Look it up in a dictionary.
You are using it in an incorrect context. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the debate. Sigh,some examples:
Books are conducive to learning.
Historical tensions are conducive to war.
I think the last two major oil spills this year provide strong enough evidence that capitalism doesn't inherently regulate itself in a way that cares for the welfare of society.
Capitalism does not care for the community and I never said it did. The point is that, intentionally or not, capitalism leads to a higher standard of life than communism does.
But let's also look at Global Warming
Environmentalism is an entirely different economical philosophy. It is also not being debated. Eventually, capitalism will solve alternative energy as well. If there is money to be made, it will be made. That is the beauty of capitalism expressed in its simplest form.
I sufficiently made the argument that capitalism most certainly doesn't care for the public's welfare, our welfare is incidental, not a primary concern.
I agree, but you have made no ground. If I cared for the equality of the community as you do (equality by policy, not by happenstance), then it stands to reason that I would be a communist too. Fortunately, I realised long ago that capitalism results in better general welfare than communism. Regardless of whether it is actively sought, it is improved. If you really cared for the community then you would hold to whichever philosophy helps it best. Historically and currently, this is capitalism.
You answered yourself for me with this sentence. If you have a government with poor planning, you'll get cock-ups, irrespective of capitalist or communist economy.
You entirely misunderstood me. The point is that private industry is always regulated better than public industry, at least in terms of supply and demand. You get that wrong (as communist governments always do and will, see starving Russians and Chinese) and everything else goes down with it.
Maybe you should research inductive versus deductive reasoning.
All socialist states are economic failures.
Communism is a form of socialism.
Therefore communism is an economic failure.
The premise I was mentioning was that we are assuming a society where everybody's basic needs are provided for (food, housing, education, and health). You kept breaking this premise by asserting that strife would exist due to lack of sufficient needs being met, or one group not getting enough rewards, etc.
See definition "a".
Isn't it obvious? Disparate wealth creates power gaps, allows one group to ultimately rule over another, creates envy and jealously, and allows for one group to take up a limited resource that could benefit those in poverty.
That is preferable to the equality of poverty that is communism/socialism.
It is ultimately in our best interests to have even wealth so as to severely curb many of the social problems stemming from disparate living conditions.
Making everybody poor will solve none of these problems. Remember that though the GNP of the U.S is $40k, that is so high because of capitalism and private corporation. Remove these, and it will lower dramatically. All of communism consists of the poor stealing the wealth of capitalists, then complaining when the nation becomes poor because of their actions.
I thought you'd be more perceptive than that. I am arguing for the possible ways that communism could work, nothing more.
All of them theoretical and not at all rooted in reality. I have already outlined the reasons for the economic failure of aspirant communist states, whereas you just point out the inequalities of capitalism.
Not in sufficient quantity to support the notion that large scale communism can work.
You keep arguing in circles. It is enough that they existed and have existed in large quantities in the past. It supports the idea that one can have large numbers of humans who don't merely work for money and profit, and can work together without being excessively greedy.
Communism gives all power to the government and its endless committees. This is a bad thing.
Again, communism as an economic model with government as something else; parliament, democracy, meritocracy, etc. We're discussing possibilities that allow for a mixed up government.
You are using it in an incorrect context. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the debate. Sigh,some examples:
Books are conducive to learning.
Historical tensions are conducive to war.
No, it's correct, it'd just be better written as "conducive to everybody's needs" however you have changed the topic rather than answer my request to rewrite your statement.
Capitalism does not care for the community and I never said it did. The point is that, intentionally or not, capitalism leads to a higher standard of life than communism does.
Please try to remember what you say in previous replies.
If you cared about the the welfare of society, you would be (ironically) a capitalist.
Also, we're not talking about standards of living, we're talking about societal welfare which is completely different. In case you need the difference pointed out, standard of living refers to the quality of life while societal welfare refers to the health of the society as well as its social health (issues of equality and freedom).
Environmentalism is an entirely different economical philosophy. It is also not being debated. Eventually, capitalism will solve alternative energy as well. If there is money to be made, it will be made. That is the beauty of capitalism expressed in its simplest form.
Ah such naivete, to think that we all were so wide-eyed once.
Let me guess, you're the type that thinks, "just throw the problem onto the market and magical competition processes will solve it?"
The reason we're BEHIND in the whole alternative energy quagmire is because we relied on capitalism, which presently sees the wealthiest and most influential men on earth (they're capitalists) using propaganda campaigns and political connections to severely limit the growth of alternative fuels because those fuels open up rival technologies which stand to disrupt their wealth.
I agree, but you have made no ground. If I cared for the equality of the community as you do (equality by policy, not by happenstance), then it stands to reason that I would be a communist too. Fortunately, I realised long ago that capitalism results in better general welfare than communism. Regardless of whether it is actively sought, it is improved. If you really cared for the community then you would hold to whichever philosophy helps it best. Historically and currently, this is capitalism.
See: standards of living and societal welfare are not equal. If you need an example, in Dubai the standards of living are quite high, given that it is a wealthy city with a majority of wealthy foreigners, but the societal welfare is low because the people suffer from extremely conservative laws concerning basic human rights and then there's rampant corruption.
The west has high standards of living but our welfare is often on the backburner because rich capitalists lobby to minimize support for technologies that are cleaner, they lobby against technologies that would make our culture open once again instead of being owned by record and motion picture studios, they lobby against healthcare, etc.
You entirely misunderstood me. The point is that private industry is always regulated better than public industry, at least in terms of supply and demand. You get that wrong (as communist governments always do and will, see starving Russians and Chinese) and everything else goes down with it.
Look, if you can't tell the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning just admit it rather than embarrassing yourself.
See definition "a".
Again, not paying attention. I'm discussing a premise, not pure communism or whatever you choose to call it.
That is preferable to the equality of poverty that is communism/socialism.
So basically being mugged in the streets, ruled by police who might be bribed, and overseen by a government that is owned by lobbyists who do not get your vote (rule by the wealthy in other words) is better than living in a society where you can't afford that 64" plasma television with 7.1 surround sound. Gotcha.
Making everybody poor will solve none of these problems. Remember that though the GNP of the U.S is $40k, that is so high because of capitalism and private corporation. Remove these, and it will lower dramatically. All of communism consists of the poor stealing the wealth of capitalists, then complaining when the nation becomes poor because of their actions.
Another "they're stealing my money!!!" argument interspersed with a remarkably shallow understanding of what influenced wages across history.
All of them theoretical and not at all rooted in reality. I have already outlined the reasons for the economic failure of aspirant communist states, whereas you just point out the inequalities of capitalism.
It would work if people were hand-picked for the society with high priorities for autodidacts, people who find fulfillment from manual and agricultural labour, and people who find fulfillment outside of making large purchases, or using class as a way to display their superiority.
The rest would have to be banished to another society, and each generation people would have to be plucked out of the society who show tendencies towards this behaviour.
You keep arguing in circles. It is enough that they existed and have existed in large quantities in the past. It supports the idea that one can have large numbers of humans who don't merely work for money and profit, and can work together without being excessively greedy.
Point received, and understood.
Again, communism as an economic model with government as something else; parliament, democracy, meritocracy, etc. We're discussing possibilities that allow for a mixed up government.
The government is irrelevant. Any system without private industry is doomed to fail, in a modern world.
No, it's correct, it'd just be better written as "conducive to everybody's needs
Conducive to the fulfilment of everybody's needs.
however you have changed the topic rather than answer my request to rewrite your statement.
I have already said that private industry is more beneficial to people than if the same industry's were made public.
Please try to remember what you say in previous replies.
"If you cared about the the welfare of society, you would be (ironically) a capitalist."
You misunderstand. If you cared about communal welfare, you would support the system that ensures a higher general standard of it, regardless of whether the resulting quality of life is by intention or by happenstance. At no point did I imply or state that capitalism directly seeks to improve communal welfare.
Also, we're not talking about standards of living, we're talking about societal welfare which is completely different.
The welfare of society is dependent on the welfare of the people within it.
In case you need the difference pointed out, standard of living refers to the quality of life while societal welfare refers to the health of the society as well as its social health (issues of equality and freedom).
A free, equal society comprised of miserable people is not my idea of societal welfare, and if yours is then I must conclude that you have your priorities wrong.
Ah such naivete, to think that we all were so wide-eyed once.
To think that a communist could call somebody else naive.
Let me guess, you're the type that thinks, "just throw the problem onto the market and magical competition processes will solve it?"
Normally, yes. But this is irrelevant. I recall communists spent little energy or money on alternative energy.
The reason we're BEHIND in the whole alternative energy quagmire is because we relied on capitalism
Super-capitalist states have the highest alternative energy production capabilities in the world. In addition, states like Japan, the UK and the U.S.A are the world's top investors in alternative energy. This does not support your notion that capitalism will retard investment in renewable energy supplies.
the wealthiest and most influential men on earth (they're capitalists) using propaganda campaigns and political connections to severely limit the growth of alternative fuels because those fuels open up rival technologies which stand to disrupt their wealth.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are against renewable energy? You had best read this link.
in Dubai the standards of living are quite high, given that it is a wealthy city with a majority of wealthy foreigners, but the societal welfare is low because the people suffer from extremely conservative laws concerning basic human rights and then there's rampant corruption.
Then clearly the measure of societal welfare and living standards are arbitrary and not at all relevant to the actual state of a society. Besides, measuring a city's standards as opposed to those of a nation will skew statistics.
The west has high standards of living but our welfare is often on the backburner because rich capitalists lobby to minimize support for technologies that are cleaner
Again with your renewable energy. I propose we move this to a new debate, which actually concerns the relationship between socio-economic models and renewable energy.
Apparently not.
Private healthcare is as a rule better than public healthcare. Regardless, it is impossible to say (correctly) that healthcare services match the demand for them. You merely need to look at the waiting lists for surgeries and other important operations, as well as the paucity of beds.
Look, if you can't tell the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning just admit it rather than embarrassing yourself.
The above was deductive reasoning. It follows the template "All men are mortal, Paul is a man, therefore Paul is mortal.
Again, not paying attention. I'm discussing a premise, not pure communism or whatever you choose to call it.
If you are not discussing communism then you are discussing the wrong premise.
So basically being mugged in the streets
Crime existed in communist states. This is irrelevant.
ruled by police who might be bribed,
If a person's wages were capped, then surely he would be more open to bribery? But this too is irrelevant.
overseen by a government that is owned by lobbyists who do not get your vote
Obviously somebody is voting for them. I recall the man who said "It doesn't matter who is voting, but who is counting the votes", was Josef Stalin, a communist. Corruption is not unique to capitalism.
is better than living in a society where you can't afford that 64" plasma television with 7.1 surround sound.
Impressing your values upon me will not sway me or lend credence to your arguments.
Gotcha.
Preconceptions are frequently wrong, as was this one.
Another "they're stealing my money!!!" argument interspersed with a remarkably shallow understanding of what influenced wages across history.
I know a great deal about the relationship between industry and wages.
autodidacts
Not exclusively communists.
people who find fulfillment from manual and agricultural labour
You clearly know very few people in unskilled labour.
who find fulfillment outside of making large purchases
That's everybody.
or using class as a way to display their superiority.
Class is superiority, whether you intend to show it or not. I have had enough of the fool-notion that all men are born equal.
The rest would have to be banished to another society
Which would inevitably outperform and wage war on the communist society.
each generation people would have to be plucked out of the society who show tendencies towards this behaviour.
Segregation does not improve societal welfare, in either your definition or mine. You are beginning to sound like Josef Stalin, who was a madman.
Do pay more attention.
The argument that contained those words was not directed at me, and I am no longer in the habit of fighting other people's battles for them. I made the effort to provide you with my thoughts from a debate with mahollinder, without presuming your knowledge of them. Show me the same courtesy.
The government is irrelevant. Any system without private industry is doomed to fail, in a modern world.
See the prior argument: indigenous peoples lived successfully without private industry for tens of thousands of years. The types of models they used might have properties that could be extended into a modern, technology-based world.
Conducive to the fulfilment of everybody's needs.
Potato-potato.
I have already said that private industry is more beneficial to people than if the same industry's were made public.
Except for healthcare, and infrastructure like roads and waterways, and firefighters, and police...
You misunderstand. If you cared about communal welfare, you would support the system that ensures a higher general standard of it, regardless of whether the resulting quality of life is by intention or by happenstance. At no point did I imply or state that capitalism directly seeks to improve communal welfare.
Your statement says the opposite of this. Learn the difference between welfare and standard of living, it's subtle but it exists.
Besides, you just made an argument for socialism and communism because these systems provide for welfare with quality of life being more incidental.
The welfare of society is dependent on the welfare of the people within it.
Didn't address what I said. I think you don't understand the difference.
A free, equal society comprised of miserable people is not my idea of societal welfare, and if yours is then I must conclude that you have your priorities wrong.
Free, equal societies are not miserable. Even in poverty they are not miserable. What makes a society miserable is inequality, repression, and lack of health.
Your statement makes no sense because it suggests something which doesn't happen then implies the desire for the opposite, which would be an unfree, unequal society with only some happy people with the rest living under their thumb.
To think that a communist could call somebody else naive.
More like a seasoned man calling a child naive.
Normally, yes. But this is irrelevant. I recall communists spent little energy or money on alternative energy.
Global warming wasn't really a concern 80 years ago.
However, I still find it utterly hilarious that you support this idea of market magic. It's almost as hysterical as the Christian who believes in Jonah and the giant fish. It's funny for the wide-eyed, idealist nature you must have. I miss being that way, so long ago.
Super-capitalist states have the highest alternative energy production capabilities in the world. In addition, states like Japan, the UK and the U.S.A are the world's top investors in alternative energy. This does not support your notion that capitalism will retard investment in renewable energy supplies.
Try looking into Brasil. It's funny how your super-capitalist states still glug down oil, despite being the best in the world at innovating technologies, yet a lowly developing nation in relative poverty was able to solve oil dependency decades ago and now runs entirely off of ethanol.
Capitalism !FTW?
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are against renewable energy? You had best read this link.
Wahaha. You're funny. You think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the wealthiest and most influential? Sure, they have a lot of personal wealth, but if you're talking about the wealth of their business that they command, and the ties that they have, you need to look at the heads of the world's oil companies, especially Saudi oil. These companies and the heads who direct them have most of the world in their clutches with a fuel source that everybody must use in one way or another, and they have kept it this way by spending untold billions in propaganda that keeps us from moving to electricity and ethanol for cars and from being attentive to all the lives that suffer as a result of the oil extraction and delivery process.
Then clearly the measure of societal welfare and living standards are arbitrary and not at all relevant to the actual state of a society. Besides, measuring a city's standards as opposed to those of a nation will skew statistics.
They aren't arbitrary, they just don't follow automatically from democracy or capitalism.
Again with your renewable energy. I propose we move this to a new debate, which actually concerns the relationship between socio-economic models and renewable energy.
Sore topic with you, probably because you're wrong and must admit a failure of the market.
Private healthcare is as a rule better than public healthcare. Regardless, it is impossible to say (correctly) that healthcare services match the demand for them. You merely need to look at the waiting lists for surgeries and other important operations, as well as the paucity of beds.
Socialised medicine still outperforms private medicine. Funny point too, because in privatized medicine, plenty of people are happy to go to work despite needing a surgery because they cannot afford it without sending their insurance costs skyrocketing, or they don't qualify on their insurance, or they used up what their insurance covers for that year.
The above was deductive reasoning. It follows the template "All men are mortal, Paul is a man, therefore Paul is mortal.
You just don't know when to quit. You were making a deduction based off of an inductive premise that lacks a large sample space and cannot be shown to be absolutely true.
Just because you're a wee bit smarter than your peers doesn't mean you should be so arrogant so as to think you shouldn't ask for help when you have a dubious proposition.
If you are not discussing communism then you are discussing the wrong premise.
I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you but I'm discussing possible threads of communism that might work but do not fall under your models.
Crime existed in communist states. This is irrelevant.
If a person's wages were capped, then surely he would be more open to bribery? But this too is irrelevant.
Obviously somebody is voting for them. I recall the man who said "It doesn't matter who is voting, but who is counting the votes", was Josef Stalin, a communist. Corruption is not unique to capitalism.
Impressing your values upon me will not sway me or lend credence to your arguments.
Preconceptions are frequently wrong, as was this one.
The premise of my communist model which you are so adamantly opposed towards is that by evenly distributing wealth, you eliminate many of the underlying social problems that stem from poverty and unbalanced power.
Resources are limited, so is wealth. Capitalism functions by distributing a limited resource, money, unevenly so that a large group may be happy but at the expense of an even larger group that is living in utter poverty (look into the sweatshops in Asia, Africa and South America that provide goods for capitalist merchants to sell).
Creating wealth on the other hand is difficult, it requires an element of fortune because you must have access to a valuable resource that isn't yet in the market, like finding new gold or diamonds. Capitalism has no especially effective process for doing this.
You on the other hand are arguing for the ability to lord wealth over others, which as we see in our society has only left us with governments now owned by lobbyists who speak for special interests instead of our own, and the ability to be robbed, or brutalised by desperate people. All for that shiny new thing that our consumer culture demands we buy for the sake of status.
I know a great deal about the relationship between industry and wages.
Apparently not.
Capitalism stood in the way of increased wages, because unions threatened company interests.
Not exclusively communists.
You clearly know very few people in unskilled labour.
That's everybody.
Didn't say they were exclusively communists, just that autodidacts are able to find fulfillment in teaching themselves which would be a type of personality that could get along in communism.
I'm guessing that you would never soil yourself by talking with lowly unskilled labourers, after all how could you have anything in common with such salt of the earth people?
Lots of people think that they need to buy and show off with expensive thinks to be happy. These people would be unhappy in a communist society.
Class is superiority, whether you intend to show it or not. I have had enough of the fool-notion that all men are born equal.
No. Class is a structure created by wealth and connections, not an inherent superiority of its members. Also, if you knew anything about biology you'd know that the spirit of "all men are created equal" is true, because it is our experiences that enable us to make use of our differences. A genius who is raised in a way that doesn't encourage his mind will be stunted, and an ordinary bloke who has had a very structured, intellectually stimulating childhood will be smarter than his peers.
Which would inevitably outperform and wage war on the communist society.
Not in the scope of discussion really.
Segregation does not improve societal welfare, in either your definition or mine. You are beginning to sound like Josef Stalin, who was a madman.
I explained that this type of society would have to be basically homogeneous to work.
The argument that contained those words was not directed at me, and I am no longer in the habit of fighting other people's battles for them. I made the effort to provide you with my thoughts from a debate with mahollinder, without presuming your knowledge of them. Show me the same courtesy.
It was a generic "yes" argument that was a statement of my position. I assumed you read it and would know the type of communism I believe could work.
1. You've set up a strawman, and have Aveskde explaining why something he does not agree is optimal but understands to be in the spirit of the black and white debate you've set up quite possible ie "Yes, technically it would work and has some good aspects" and you hear "I'm a communist"
It is a silly propositon.
Not in sufficient quantity to support the notion that large scale communism can work.
You did not originally ask for sufficient quantity to support anything. You made a statement, Av disagrees theoretically. It is as if you shot a free throw, missed, and said "a freethrow cannot be made." That said, again as I stated in another line of arguement, you seem to be attempting to steer this boat toward the idea of social programs whithin a democracy and not communism itself. A democracy without reigns on capitalism will inevitably become either a monarchy or a fascist state - hence oversite.
Capitalism does not care for the community and I never said it did. The point is that, intentionally or not, capitalism leads to a higher standard of life than communism does.
For a few, not for the majority. Which ironically our (US) constitution was written for... the majority. Unreigned capitalism would never have allowed for slaves to be freed, it would have no minumum wage, it would not care if miners or people on an oil rig were blown to pieces... the last two are very real and recent examples of how capitalism does not care for the individual. Even logically, why should it? There is no reason it would.
Say someone came up with a car battery that never ran out... why would oil not stop it from becoming reality? Why would there not be a massive ad campaign against it? Why would oil not pay car manufacturers not to make cars that used this battery?
There is no reason.
Anyway, I'm bored of you now. The fact is a pure capitalism would crumble faster than a pure communist society. All Western nations, which have been the most successful in human history, balance capitalism (incentive based) with social safegaurds. And we vote for our CEOs so they are not all powerful as BP or Halliburton would be if there were no government to put limits on them.
You've set up a strawman, and have Aveskde explaining why something he does not agree is optimal but understands to be in the spirit of the black and white debate you've set up quite possible
Yes, and I find this to be most entertaining.
It is a silly propositon.
That is a silly spelling of proposition.
You did not originally ask for sufficient quantity to support anything.
I forgot to stipulate that. No sense in changing it now.
You made a statement, Av disagrees theoretically.
Please do not fight other people's battles. If you want to debate with me, then do not refute tailored arguments. It requires me to re-read my arguments, which I often do not agree with in hindsight.
That said, again as I stated in another line of arguement, you seem to be attempting to steer this boat toward the idea of social programs whithin a democracy and not communism itself. A democracy without reigns on capitalism will inevitably become either a monarchy or a fascist state - hence oversite.
You think I fear the rise of monarchy? Me being a monarchist? I was also a fascist at one point. Lost interest in it, but I still see its strengths.
For a few, not for the majority.
You are speaking of wealth gaps, not of overall living standards. Besides, I support the idea that a man may become as rich as he is able to become. I am a capitalist, remember.
Which ironically our (US) constitution was written for... the majority.
I recall George Washington was one of the wealthiest landowners in Virginia. I doubt he supported state property.
Unreigned capitalism would never have allowed for slaves to be freed
Everything is given to excess when it is unreigned. Government capitalism (which is regulated) does whatever is necessary to ensure the well being of the economy. Slavery is bad for the economy. Unreigned capitalism is not what I speak of.
it would have no minumum wage
Again, we are not discussing unreigned capitalism. Using the worst example of something is a cowardly way of defaming it.
it would not care if miners or people on an oil rig were blown to pieces...
People are valuable. I cannot imagine capitalists not caring for the loss of something valuable.
the last two are very real and recent examples of how capitalism does not care for the individual.
Neither does communism.
Say someone came up with a car battery that never ran out... why would oil not stop it from becoming reality?
That someone would probably be a capitalist. In a related case, BP is the world's third largest wind power producer. Real capitalists understand the need to diversify.
Why would there not be a massive ad campaign against it?
Because the oil company would probably have developed their own knock-off version and would not want to campaign against their own product.
Why would oil not pay car manufacturers not to make cars that used this battery?
See above.
There is no reason.
See above.
Anyway, I'm bored of you now.
It took you this long? I am, however, surprised by your lack of manners.
The fact is a pure capitalism would crumble faster than a pure communist society.
The outcome of the cold war refutes this notion.
All Western nations, which have been the most successful in human history, balance capitalism (incentive based) with social safegaurds.
True capitalism. Anything to retain wealth, regardless of what policies you have to adopt.
And we vote for our CEOs so they are not all powerful as BP or Halliburton would be if there were no government to put limits on them.
I have often noticed how communistic ideals prosper in capitalistic countries.
I find it is only possible for one to hate something if they don't really understand it.
Technically the end result of humanity would have to be a communistic system... granted in which robots or whatnot do all the work and we make decisions and travel through space.
Back in the meantime though, you sound like someone who confuses capitalism for democracy, and communism for socialism. Kinda disappointed.
Sure, people are selfish and greedy, and communism won't work now as such, but one cannot make a definite all inclusive judgment about what amounts to a governance theory, as if that specific theory had horns.
The fact is, any government could work so long as there were means to employ it. Democracy works better now. Demonizing simple terms though does nothing to further democracy's cause or even belittle the actual meaning of "communism"... since it here has been taken out of context.
I find it is only possible for one to hate something if they don't really understand it.
Not true of everybody.
Technically the end result of humanity would have to be a communistic system... granted in which robots or whatnot do all the work and we make decisions and travel through space.
If we give all industrial power to the workers then we would never achieve any of these things.
Back in the meantime though, you sound like someone who confuses capitalism for democracy
I am fully aware that they are two entirely separate things.
and communism for socialism.
I may be guilty of this. But most people are, so I can quite easily claim to have used communism instead to avoid confusion. That would be a lie, but you didn't know that.
Kinda disappointed.
I resent your perceived right to be disappointed with me.
Sure, people are selfish and greedy, and communism won't work now as such, but one cannot make a definite all inclusive judgment about what amounts to a governance theory, as if that specific theory had horns.
See "people are selfish and greedy".
The fact is, any government could work so long as there were means to employ it.
If a system fails at some point, then it does not work properly, unless its failure is intended.
Democracy works better now. Demonizing simple terms though does nothing to further democracy's cause
Yes it can, let us take this slowly first off there are many different types of communism I developed my own theory which can work, I posted it on youtube. If you want you can type in: How the communist system works (My Version) If you have a question ask me.
People often say that communism works well in theory, but not in reality. This always confuses me, because if something doesn't actually work then clearly there is something wrong with your theory and not reality. Any theory that doesn't take the idea of incentives into account clearly is lacking, and to think that anything other than free trade will lead to a productive economy is delusional thinking to say the least.
Through specialization and trade, our society has advanced far beyond what anyone could have hoped for. We have technology that would appear as magic to even those living just 100 years ago, and bounty greater than any King or emperor ever could have demanded from his subjects.
I understand that most people advocating communism are well intentioned, but they are also uneducated because if they had even a basic understanding of economics they would understand how much the adoption of a communist based economic system would degrade the quality of life of nearly everyone in society.
you say that most people advocating communism are uneducated, then how do you explain the fact that most uneducated people tend to be right wing leaning, while high level university profesors seem to be left leaning?
No, Soviet Union failed, and those advocates always argue that wasn't true Communism. Communism provides no incentives to better thy self.
Doctor and janitor essentially on the same pay grade. Who would be a doctor if they are paid the same as a janitor. It is a society without class. A society without class is pointless.
Those are better with higher class. It is fact of life.
No, Soviet Union failed, and those advocates always argue that wasn't true Communism.
The Soviet Union fell largely because of its entry into a cold war, for which it was economically unprepared. It didn't fail because of a deficiency of Communism.
Communism provides no incentives to better thy self.
It seems like a moot and insoluble contention, really. The notion of bettering one's self is a philosophical question, as what constitutes bettering diverges across cultures. In some places in Africa and the Pacific Islands, bettering means a woman eating 15,000 calories a day to get plump for a prospective mate.
And quite obviously there's more than one form of incentive. Dan Pink does an excellent talk during an RSA session on performance incentives and what actually drives people towards creativity and productivity (you can also find another speech he makes on the same topic at the TED website).
Who would be a doctor if they are paid the same as a janitor.
This kind of point betrays ignorance. Millions of people, is the answer. If pay was the only determinant for choosing careers, then no one would ever become a social worker, or a teacher, or work in non-profit organizations that help the poor. Instead, everyone would get a Business degree, work at some corporation towards becoming a corporate officer, since they are largely the highest paid people on the planet and then die happily. But the reality of the human condition and what motivates us to make certain decisions more often than not differs from the theory.
The Soviet Union fell largely because of its entry into a cold war, for which it was economically unprepared. It didn't fail because of a deficiency of Communism.
Whether it was unprepared or not, it failed because it couldn't compete with innovative practices of capitalism and self interest. Capitalism doesn't need to be prepared because it is built in the system.
performance incentives and what actually drives people towards creativity and productivity
What other kind of incentives are other than monetary?
If pay was the only determinant for choosing careers, then no one would ever become a social worker, or a teacher, or work in non-profit organizations that help the poor.
Whether it was unprepared or not, it failed because it couldn't compete with innovative practices of capitalism and self interest. Capitalism doesn't need to be prepared because it is built in the system.
Most people are not capitalists. They merely exist in the system as bystanders. Self-interest is actually not such a high priority for many humans as we are social creatures.
What other kind of incentives are other than monetary?
Many. You come off as very selfish in these debates, so I asked a teacher why he became one, and to answer your next question:
Yet, teachers complain how underpaid they are.
What other than money motivates us? Nothing.
He became a teacher because he loves the subject he teaches, he loves working with kids, and he has a desire to help make his kids in the class enjoy the subject as he does. The biggest reason however was that people often told him that he would be a great teacher (because he would help people with subjects, discuss them, etc.).
Most people are not capitalists. They merely exist in the system as bystanders.
Most people don't even know what capitalism represents, so by definition, they merely exist as mindless zombies traveling through as bystanders. Most people can understand what would change if we became socialist or communist.
Self-interest is actually not such a high priority for many humans as we are social creatures.
Really, have you ever walked through any suburb and see the keeping with Joneses effect? Neighbors competing for the new greatest material goods all in the pursuit of self interest. This applies as well as for big cities with the largest apartments.
You come off as very selfish in these debates
Well, that is my intention. Is that a problem?
He became a teacher because he loves the subject he teaches
So, I am sure that he donates half of his check, and drives a rusty little car with a 12 inch television with a old VHS player in his tiny little apartment because he has no self interest for himself where if he is not at school, he is volunteering at the local Red Cross, and if not there, he is at the nursing home, right.
Most people don't even know what capitalism represents, so by definition, they merely exist as mindless zombies traveling through as bystanders. Most people can understand what would change if we became socialist or communist.
So you accede to my statement despite changing the topic. That's fine with me.
Really, have you ever walked through any suburb and see the keeping with Joneses effect? Neighbors competing for the new greatest material goods all in the pursuit of self interest. This applies as well as for big cities with the largest apartments.
Because all people live in suburbs? Did you note my language? I did not say that all people lack self-interest, I said that many do. This is why we have so many charity workers, volunteers, it is why when you were a child you could go to public school for free and why you are permitted to vote (because if self-interest were law, the wealthy and powerful would have made the country a monarchy, and school would be expensive as per profit-making motives).
Well, that is my intention. Is that a problem?
It means you lack perception in these topics. You may as well be an autistic running for president because that's how inept you are at understanding the deeper issues.
So, I am sure that he donates half of his check, and drives a rusty little car with a 12 inch television with a old VHS player in his tiny little apartment because he has no self interest for himself where if he is not at school, he is volunteering at the local Red Cross, and if not there, he is at the nursing home, right.
Buying material goods is self interest.
All I'm reading from you is an attempt to defensively change the subject because you are wrong. Remember, I'm not the inexperienced, ignorant debater type that you usually argue with, I know a red herring when I see one, so don't use lazy writing with me.
Most people don't even know what capitalism represents, so by definition, they merely exist as mindless zombies traveling through as bystanders.
I wasn't changing the topic. I was stating that if people are going to be "merely bystanders, then fine, move to the side, and let others through.
it is why when you were a child you could go to public school for free and why you are permitted to vote
Didn't go to public school and my right to vote is protected by the 15th amendment to the US Constitution, and how the checks and balances proscribed in the Constitution protect this nation from a monarchy or oligarchy.
Self interest is not vested in politics or law, it is vested in economics.
Besides public school is a good thing because it is a positive externality.
How inept you are at understanding the deeper issues?
Perceptive in these topics? WTF??
Insulting my intelligence doesn't make your argument any stronger.
I would really love to read the "deeper issues" that the MASTER aveskde can provide with his infinite wisdom.
To go back, He became a teacher because he loves the subject he teaches, he loves working with kids, and he has a desire to help make his kids in the class enjoy the subject as he does.
Whether it was unprepared or not, it failed because it couldn't compete with innovative practices of capitalism and self interest.
Counterpoint: Japan also has a capitalist economy. And it would also fail if the country competed with America in a decades long cold war.
Capitalism doesn't need to be prepared because it is built in the system.
What is "it" in this sentence?
What other kind of incentives are other than monetary?
Watch the video I linked.
Yet, teachers complain how underpaid they are.
Some do. I don't. I know others who don't. But this is also very much besides the point. The point is, if pay was the only motivation for choosing a career, no one would ever choose a career that was low-paying. The fact that people do choose low-paying careers means that pay isn't the only thing that is motivating them.
What other than money motivates us? Nothing.
I'm quite positive that you can, if you actually tried, discover a swath of incentives that have nothing to do with money. But, in terms of economics: RSA Video and a second TED Video
And it would also fail if the country competed with America in a decades long cold war.
That is because of the U.S's economic power. Such power is granted through capitalism.
What is "it" in this sentence?
I have often noticed that you take issue with the noun "it". As far as I am concerned, you are being pedantic. You know perfectly well what "it" is referring to.
Some do. I don't. I know others who don't. But this is also very much besides the point. The point is, if pay was the only motivation for choosing a career, no one would ever choose a career that was low-paying.
Having spent a great deal of time working alongside low-paid recycling workers, I am inclined to disagree with you. Every one of them has blamed their predicament on academic failure. They did not "choose" to work in such places. They dwell in their necessity.
The fact that people do choose low-paying careers means that pay isn't the only thing that is motivating them.
That is an individual choice. Communism annihilates individualism.
I'm quite positive that you can, if you actually tried, discover a swath of incentives that have nothing to do with money.
Those motives serve for the individual, but it is foolish to impress them upon everybody.
That is because of the U.S's economic power. Such power is granted through capitalism.
Might very well be true. But since the scenario I introduced involves two Capitalist nations, your point is somewhat meaningless as a counterpoise. Any country, Capitalist or Communist would have lost at the time and would lose now (at least for the time being) if they competed with America in a cold war. The economic system the losing country had/has is largely irrelevant.
You know perfectly well what "it" is referring to.
"It' can't refer to the Soviet Union, because that's obviously something that isn't and can't be built into Capitalism. "It" also can't be innovation and self-interest, since that's a "they are" and not an "it is". And since we all know through experience and history that preparedness or anticipation for fluctuating variables is vital to any economic system, I am admittedly ignorant about what is built into capitalism that renders economic preparedness irrelevant. So, I think I'm justified in asking what is the "it" that is built into Capitalism that makes economic preparedness irrelevant.
Having spent a great deal of time working alongside low-paid recycling workers, I am inclineddisagree with you.
This is irrelevant, because I'm bringing to issue people who do choose low-paying careers. Social workers are among the lowest paid workers in most advanced countries. In America, they make on average a little less than $30,000 - that's roughly 20,000 pounds a year. And you have to have at least a bachelors in Social Work to fill most of the positions (in Amerca). It is more than obvious to anyone that it's not the exceedingly generous pay that motivates people to become social workers. So, the only thing I can conclude is that money is not the only incentive that people have for choosing some careers. And that is my counterpoint to PrayerFails' "money is the only incentive". It isn't.
Communism annihilates individualism.
How? And to what extent is this meaningful when every society does this through thousands of regulations and policies?
Those motives serve for the individual, but it is foolish to impress them upon everybody.
Like money = the only (or best) incentive? Watch the videos. I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my ass.
The economic system the losing country had/has is largely irrelevant.
Rendering your original point moot.
"It' can't refer to the Soviet Union, because that's obviously something that isn't and can't be built into Capitalism.
It quite obviously referred to a state of preparedness (though I am unaware as to what form prayerfails believes this takes).
So, I think I'm justified in asking what is the "it" that is built into Capitalism that makes economic preparedness irrelevant.
Have you considered that prayerfails might just be wrong?
It isn't.
But it is the most prevalent one.
How?
There are several ways to express one's individuality:
1) Publishing/displaying one's thoughts and opinions. Communists like Mao Zedong have a history of persecuting and murdering people whose opinions differ from their own.
2) Materialism. I like Georgian architecture. The most obvious way of manifesting this penchant is to buy a Georgian home. Under communism I could neither afford nor buy such a home. Neither could I afford most other life-enriching things. If the communist state was exceedingly rich I could, but they are invariably poor.
3) Entrepreneurship. Many feel the need to start businesses. Private industry is illegal in communism. This is the primary contributor to communism's inevitable economic failure.
And to what extent is this meaningful when every society does this through thousands of regulations and policies?
Capitalist societies do not prevent me from doing the above.
Like money = the only (or best) incentive?
It is the best (non-biological) incentive. Saying otherwise suggests naivety. Furthermore, communism is more unfair than capitalism. Somebody who goes through fifteen of so years of education, works hard and achieves, ends up supporting a plethora of underachievers. Why should one person have to work harder than another just to receive the same reward? Again, if it is an individual choice then it is not my prerogative to deny that, but when it is enforced it serves only to devalue effort.
I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my ass.
No, you're pulling it out of a bovine's ass, hence it being bullshit.
The Soviet Union fell largely because of its entry into a cold war, for which it was economically unprepared. It didn't fail because of a deficiency of Communism.
Which you failed to properly address.
I have often noticed that you take issue with the noun "it". As far as I am concerned, you are being pedantic. You know perfectly well what "it" is referring to.
He was asking for an unambiguous description for what "it" is so as to avoid an argument whereby you both are arguing different topics. You'd save trouble by just answering it, arguments are very difficult without precise topics to dispute.
There are several ways to express one's individuality:
The meat of your argument.
Point One is only important if you're dealing with an anti-intellectual government. Communism doesn't require this, it's only a possibility (again, how many western democracies have punished dissidents and dissenters?).
Point Two only matters if you think like a capitalist. Remember we're talking about hypothetical models here, it's entirely possible to have a society that is made up of people who aren't interested in amassing wealth so that money becomes merely a tool of trade, and so issues of state poverty become less meaningful (Georgian architecture, and most high-end products and goods are actually inflated in value so as to drive profits up for the producer, which in turn causes the consumer to become more greedy for money so that he can afford these over-priced products, leading to a vicious cycle).
Point Three loses most of its meaning in a communist state because working for personal wealth little meaning, so starting a business is merely about fulfilling a need or interest, rather than pursuing a get-rich-quick scheme.
It is the best (non-biological) incentive. Saying otherwise suggests naivety. Furthermore, communism is more unfair than capitalism. Somebody who goes through fifteen of so years of education, works hard and achieves, ends up supporting a plethora of underachievers. Why should one person have to work harder than another just to receive the same reward? Again, if it is an individual choice then it is not my prerogative to deny that, but when it is enforced it serves only to devalue effort.
You keep dismissing the premise. Money lacks value if you can have your needs provided for you, amassing wealth has no depth to is when things cost what they are worth rather than what a producer dictates.
My original point was that the Soviet Union's failure to compete with America during the Cold War wasn't a deficiency of Communism. I don't see how arguing that the specific economic system employed is irrelevant when dealing with America makes the original point moot.
It quite obviously referred to a state of preparedness (though I am unaware as to what form prayerfails believes this takes).
According to him, it's "the free market". So what's obvious to you wasn't so obvious to him.
But it is the most prevalent one.
But not necessarily the best (see below).
Publishing/displaying one's thoughts and opinions. Communists like Mao Zedong have a history of persecuting and murdering people whose opinions differ from their own.
Persecuting, incarcerating and murdering people with socially and politically divergent beliefs isn't unique to Communism or any particular country for that matter.
I like Georgian architecture. The most obvious way of manifesting this penchant is to buy a Georgian home. Under communism I could neither afford nor buy such a home.
I don't see the point. That you cant doesn't mean no one else can. I sense a summation of the principle, contrarian doctrine that everyone "gets paid the same in Communism and they're all necessarily impoverished", which I disagree with.
Entrepreneurship. Many feel the need to start businesses. Private industry is illegal in communism. This is the primary contributor to communism's inevitable economic failure.
Supporters of the Capitalist doctrine seem to assume that things like creativity and entrepreneurship only came into existence the moment some liberal democrats decided to formalize the Capitalist system. It's as if to say nothing ever happened throughout human history except from the 19th century onward.
It is the best (non-biological) incentive. Saying otherwise suggests naivety.
Meh, you're just poisoning the well. Watch the videos, Dan Pink discusses and summarizes 40 years of research. Saying what you're saying - to be more specific, condensing the issue of incentives to money - is the naivete, because it stems from the intuitive conclusions of Capitalist philosophy and not the counterintuitive conclusions of the scientific research conducted across the globe for over 40 years. That is, there is a steep disconnect between what we know scientifically and what people (like you - not intended to be disparaging) think.
Somebody who goes through fifteen or so years of education, works hard and achieves, ends up supporting a plethora of underachievers.
In terms of Communism, what do you mean by "underachieve"?
No, you're pulling it out of a bovine's ass, hence it being bullshit.
Watch the videos. Some of the things I've written isn't socialist propaganda. It comes from the conclusions of research conducted by researchers at the American Reserve Bank, the London School of Economics, MIT etc. etc.
My original point was that the Soviet Union's failure to compete with America during the Cold War wasn't a deficiency of Communism.
Soviet Russia was poor before the cold war. Though I was referring to your Japanese point.
According to him, it's "the free market". So what's obvious to you wasn't so obvious to him.
Well played.
Persecuting, incarcerating and murdering people with socially and politically divergent beliefs isn't unique to Communism or any particular country for that matter.
Nor is anti-Semitism unique to Nazism. But I see your point.
That you cant doesn't mean no one else can.
Nobody can, private property is prohibited. People are assigned their homes.
I sense a summation of the principle, contrarian doctrine that everyone "gets paid the same in Communism and they're all necessarily impoverished", which I disagree with.
You disagreeing does not change what communism is. Nationalisation of wealth is quintessential to communism.
Supporters of the Capitalist doctrine seem to assume that things like creativity and entrepreneurship only came into existence the moment some liberal democrats decided to formalize the Capitalist system. It's as if to say nothing ever happened throughout human history except from the 19th century onward.
I did not say that. I stated that private industry is illegal in communist states. Please explain as to how this does not make failure inevitable.
Meh, you're just poisoning the well....
Red propaganda. I'll have none of it.
In terms of Communism, what do you mean by "underachieve"?
Underachieving academically is not unique to communist states. However, in a communist state, those who ''do'' achieve will be forever anchored to mediocrity by the vast underclass. While this underclass is present in non-communist states, the intellectual ascendancy is under no obligation to support them beyond the percentage of their taxes that go towards welfare. I do not see why one should have to work harder no additional benefit.
Watch the videos. Some of the things I've written isn't socialist propaganda.
I'll watch them when I am assigned more bandwidth. The rest of your argument is definitely socialist propaganda. I have the advantage that historically, every communist state has reverted to capitalism. Your arguments are firmly rooted in theory - the only realm in which communism has ever worked as intended. Reading the ideas of Marx and Engels gives me the impression that neither of them knew how international economics works (when it does work).
Not entirely accurate. In Communism, "private property" is an issue of Capital (primarily the means of production). That is, it's not about you owning a home or a nice pair of shoes, or even a business that sells nice pairs of shoes. It's about whether you can legitimately claim to own a "resource" (capital) and therefore the singular "right" to utilize, process and manufacture it (i.e. "Bourgeoisie private property"). That is, you couldn't claim ownership of things like factories or mills, or logging camps. That kind of stuff belongs to "everyone". A thing to consider is that Communism seeks to reduce exclusivity, alienation and class oppression.
You disagreeing does not change what communism is. Nationalisation of wealth is quintessential to communism.
Crash course: Communism is a process of historical development and surmounting. The first stage is class consciousness and revolution. The second stage is despotism or a socialist transition. The third and final stage is "The community". It is after the period of despotism or polity-ownership ("nationalization" if that occurs) has appeared and dissolved, and class systems have been abolished, when the society becomes Communist. Any society that is despotic might very well be in the Communist process, but it's not Communist yet. It's very much like what Kant said about the age of enlightenment; it itself wasn't an enlightened age, it's just a process towards an enlightened age. And this is one of the main reasons why you might hear proponents of Communism argue that Communism has never been practiced. It hasn't.
I did not say that. I stated that private industry is illegal in communist states. Please explain as to how this does not make failure inevitable.
Well... you referred to a few things: entrepreneurship, starting a business and private industry. Entrepreneurship isn't going anywhere, and you can start a business. And private industry isn't "illegal". It doesn't exist in Communism. Kind of semantically, something that doesn't exist can't be illegal. But that isn't to say that industry doesn't exist. There's only a distinction between communal ownership and private ownership.
Underachieving academically is not unique to communist states. However, in a communist state, those who ''do'' achieve will be forever anchored to mediocrity by the vast underclass.
This doesn't translate.
The rest of your argument is definitely socialist propaganda.
Technically it's not propaganda because propaganda is rhetoric used by an institution (i.e. a government or a corporation, or representative of either). I don't belong to a Socialist or Communist group, and I don't represent one.
Reading the ideas of Marx and Engels gives me the impression that neither of them knew how international economics works (when it does work).
You've read The Capital and Grundrisse? You're a very brave, heroic man.
A thing to consider is that Communism seeks to reduce exclusivity, alienation and class oppression.
And historically has failed in these endeavours.
Crash course....
Thank you.
And this is one of the main reasons why you might hear proponents of Communism argue that Communism has never been practiced. It hasn't.
This supports the assertion that it is impossible on a large scale. Even with an entire nation's resources (and later those of many other nations) behind it, true communism was never established. It is as much of a dream as the American dream of equal opportunity....etcetera. Neither system succeeded in establishing such equality, but capitalism came closer.
Well... you referred to a few things: entrepreneurship, starting a business and private industry.
For the private individual. The first two prelude to the third.
And private industry isn't "illegal". It doesn't exist in Communism. Kind of semantically, something that doesn't exist can't be illegal.
You summarised that perfectly with the word "semantically". The effect is even more severe than if it were "illegal".
But that isn't to say that industry doesn't exist.
True, but can you explain why we have Massey Ferguson instead of The people's tractor factory #53? It's because governments are inept at controlling industry. The soviets produced millions of tons of steel, but struggled to provide basic household goods. In a capitalist society, what is in demand is profitable and is therefore made in such a quantity as meets that demand. In a communist (for the sake of argument) society, the "needs" of the state often come before those of the people. That is why soviet Russia had thousands of tractors, but suffered from widespread starvation (1932). To exacerbate this, farmers were evicted or imprisoned for failing to meet unrealistic quotas, set by people with little or no understanding of agriculture (EU quota systems failed as well).Then by 1937, soviet steel and coal production was given priority, in a bid to outmatch Germany. As a result, the quality of life deteriorated as planners ignored consumers. Military equipment was overproduced, whilst consumer goods dropped in both quality and quantity. Skip past many more failures (I don't want to take up too much of your time) to the early eighties. By then, the U.S.S.R is was being outproduced agriculturally by the U.S. As a result, the U.S.S.R was forced to import millions of tons of grain to support its population, because of all the fuck-ups (excuse me) in agriculture. In brief, "planners" who know nothing about supply and demand, were given complete control over all aspects of industry and, naturally, messed up the most basic supply: food.
This doesn't translate.
Again, in brief, opportunity to excel academically is granted only when the state deems it necessary and in the interests of the people. For example, nuclear physics takes precedence over other aspects of science to the extent that research in most other areas grinds to a halt. You only have to look at the relative technological advancement between the U.S and the U.S.S.R during the cold war to see what I mean (The Americans were guilty of this too, but to a lesser extent. Private research institutes helped too).
Technically it's not propaganda because propaganda is rhetoric used by an institution
Propaganda: the spreading of ideas of a group, movement or individual in order to bring about change. This is rendered irrelevant if you are not a socialist (personally), however. Are you?
You've read The Capital and Grundrisse? You're a very brave, heroic man.
Parts of Grundrisse only. I gave up on The Chapter on Capital. 800 pages of socialist drivel is too much, even for me.
This is probably correct. Capitalist economies compete within themselves. Those with the least government intervention and free trade will prevail.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, globalization assembled across the world
What "it" is?
"It" is the free market where people are freely able to pursue their self interest by providing a public benefit without the intention with the lack of government interference.
Some do. I don't. I know others who don't.
No way for you to prove that, so I have to take your word.
The fact that people do choose low-paying careers means that pay isn't the only thing that is motivating them.
No, they don't have the skills or opportunity.
I'm quite positive that you can, if you actually tried, discover a swath of incentives that have nothing to do with money.
Not going to watch 41 minutes of that guy but watched some, and that study was inclusive because he didn't mention anything about the sample size and the statistical analysis of that study.
This is probably correct. Capitalist economies compete within themselves. Those with the least government intervention and free trade will prevail.
"It" is the free market where people are freely able to pursue their self interest by providing a public benefit without the intention with the lack of government interference.
Free trade is just an excuse for consumer exploitation and market instability. Our country suffered two great depressions because of lack of government regulations.
Why libertarians seem so inept at understanding this basic cause and effect is beyond me.
A brick wall fell on us twice over this very point and you still advocate sitting under the perilously shifting wall.
Not going to watch 41 minutes of that guy but watched some, and that study was inclusive because he didn't mention anything about the sample size and the statistical analysis of that study.
Remember the debate is about finding incentives besides money. It doesn't matter how many people have these incentives, just that they exist.
Two Great Depressions? WTF? Well, anyway, the government caused the first depression in the 1930's through the geniuses at the Federal Reserve. Matter of fact government creates all recessions and expansion at well through the central bank.
Furthermore, remember when the airline industry was deregulated, competition exploded, and instead of flight reserved for the rich and powerful, it allowed anyone fly across the country.
Remember the debate is about finding incentives besides money. It doesn't matter how many people have these incentives, just that they exist.
Again, Dan Pink doesn't reveal anything on how the study was conducted; thus so all we know is that he is a chronic lair who is pursuing his own self interest.
Two Great Depressions? WTF? Well, anyway, the government caused the first depression in the 1930's through the geniuses at the Federal Reserve. Matter of fact government creates all recessions and expansion at well through the central bank.
I'm talking about the recent housing bubble and the great depression. Both stemmed from a lack of proper regulation and safety nets that could have prevented perilous investments and saved us if market instability occurred.
Markets crash, recessions happen, but encouraging this behaviour by allowing loopholes that make it profitable to trade debt, for example, and having no sort of national insurance for when the market does crash just puts us into massive debt.
Furthermore, remember when the airline industry was deregulated, competition exploded, and instead of flight reserved for the rich and powerful, it allowed anyone fly across the country.
I'm talking about the market, not specific companies.
Again, Dan Pink doesn't reveal anything on how the study was conducted; thus so all we know is that he is a chronic lair who is pursuing his own self interest.
USSR failed because most other nations boycotted them.
Communism provides no incentives to better thy self.
However, it does provide an incentive to better society - which, in turn, betters the individual.
Doctor and janitor essentially on the same pay grade.
Thus, there is no reason to take the worst job. That is why "The Government" (or, in Star Trek, a computer) would chose people's careers 'from the get-go'.
Who would be a doctor if they are paid the same as a janitor.
A person who wishes to help people.
Those are better with higher class. It is fact of life.
The whole purpose of communism is to get rid of classes so that such a huge percentage of the populace is not is desperate poverty.
USSR failed because most other nations boycotted them.
USSR's economic policy was isolationism, which explicitly prohibited any trade with non alliance states. That worked for some time due to the Cold War but when the Berlin Wall fell, communism can't compete in a global market.
it does provide an incentive to better society - which, in turn, betters the individual.
USSR also failed because the economic/political system didn't provide any personal achievement.
That is why "The Government" would chose people's careers 'from the get-go'.
The lure of the Rocky Balboa story is the epitome of American freedom of choice because people are freely able to choose any profession instead of government bureaucrats telling what their destiny is going to be.
A person who wishes to help people.
Please students go to med school to help people. HA! It is self aggrandizing interest, and it is their every right.
The whole purpose of communism is to get rid of classes so that such a huge percentage of the populace is not is desperate poverty.
Capitalism may have suffering and misery for the few, but communism brigs suffering and misery to all.
USSR also failed because the economic/political system didn't provide any personal achievement.
And the USSR is the perfect picture of communism?
The lure of the Rocky Balboa story is the epitome of American freedom of choice because people are freely able to choose any profession instead of government bureaucrats telling what their destiny is going to be.
As I recall, at the end of the Rocky series he was left brain damaged.
Anyway, how many people chose the professions they'd be best at, rather than the ones they want?
Please students go to med school to help people.
I did not say that all do, but doubtless that there is at least one person in the midst of all the students who wishes to help somebody.
It is self aggrandizing interest
But in a communist state, they wouldn't be aggrandizing themselves - there'd be one reason to do it: to help people. There'd only be a few things to life in such a society: help people and better society.
Maybe, there is one idealist nutcase who goes to medical school just to help somebody. It is maybe 1% of the medical students.
So you are saying that the only reason people go to medical school is to become wealthy? If that were so, then in Communism money would not be a factor.
In a capitalist, people help people and better society, but the difference is in the pursuit of self interest.
Self interest also leads to murder, thievery, human trafficking, drug trafficking and most other crimes.
There has never been a true communist nation nor a capitalist.
Use a computer
I would rather use human ingenuity.
Remember, computers are only as smart as its programmers. Computers have just as many as flaws as humans considering they are built, designed and programmed by humans
you are saying that the only reason people go to medical school is to become wealthy?
in Communism money would not be a factor.
No, every civilization needs some kind of currency to exchange good and services even in its most crude form, trading quid pro quo.
Self interest also leads to murder, thievery, human trafficking, drug trafficking and most other crimes.
Nobody was killed in the USSR or China in the pursuit of government interests or agenda.
There has never been a true communist nation nor a capitalist.
Then why use them as precedents?
Remember, computers are only as smart as its programmers. Computers have just as many as flaws as humans considering they are built, designed and programmed by humans
Right now, but in a few decades, who knows how advanced they will become.
No, every civilization needs some kind of currency to exchange good and services even in its most crude form, trading quid pro quo.
What about pre-monetary society? There are no records, it cannot be absolutely proven that there has never been a society without some form of currency or bartering system. We have no known precedent for the matter, thus saying that people needs some kind of currency is pure conjecture.
Nobody was killed in the USSR or China in the pursuit of government interests or agenda.
That's because they had too much government. Many have been killed by Americans due to their interests and/or agendas.
Advocates of communism are just as confident that pure communism will work as I think pure capitalism would work. I would guarantee that the capitalist society would have much greater wealth than the communism.
Right now, but in a few decades, who knows how advanced they will become.
Suggesting that A.I. will have the capacity of thinking on its own may be a stretch as a Terminator type scenario.
What about pre-monetary society?
Although it is unproven in monetary sense, yet even in its most rudimentary form of intellectually cognitive humans, trade was common in the voluntary exchange for goods and services, and trade is still a transaction or commerce, which is a mechanism known as a market.
"Trading was the main facility of prehistoric people, who bartered goods and services from each other before the innovation of the modern day currency. Peter Watson dates the history of long-distance commerce from circa 150,000 years ago."Wikipedia
That's because they had too much government.
Even on the opposite side of the political spectrum, government still has killing motives.
Fascism is the most oppressive form government that has killed in the pursuit of nationalism, and culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism. The holocaust is a prime example of government's lack of individualism. Fascists reject and resist the autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated. Thus, they kill under this ideal.
I would guarantee that the capitalist society would have much greater wealth than the communism.
And more crime.
That's where one must decide if an excess of crime is worth slightly more money - that is, money that shall be owned by the wealthy. The poor remain poor in a capitalistic society.
Suggesting that A.I. will have the capacity of thinking on its own may be a stretch as a Terminator type scenario.
They say that such a scenario is possible.
Although it is unproven in monetary sense, yet even in its most rudimentary form of intellectually cognitive humans, trade was common in the voluntary exchange for goods and services, and trade is still a transaction or commerce, which is a mechanism known as a market.
But you cannot prove that this is true before records. Before a time in which archaeologists have discovered coins - if even they are coins.
"Trading was the main facility of prehistoric people, who bartered goods and services from each other before the innovation of the modern day currency. Peter Watson dates the history of long-distance commerce from circa 150,000 years ago."
Yet that cannot be proven, can it?
Even on the opposite side of the political spectrum, government still has killing motives.
Exactly - whether they are capitalist or communist, they shall continue killing their citizens.
The holocaust is a prime example of government's lack of individualism.
What about Stalin's Reign of Terror?
Fascists reject and resist the autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.
(I'm not sure if the internet has anything on this (censorship, you know), but the book I've got says that America was involved in the cover-up of Unit 731. Maybe I'll transcribe it sometime.
Crime will exist regardless the wealth of a society. "Communist nations are plagued with just about all the crimes known to the West, and a few others besides."Time
They say that such a scenario is possible.
I understand that it is possible, but unlikely.
But you cannot prove that this is true before records.
Of course, not, without written records that is impossible.
Fascism is nor socialism or capitalism, it is corporatism.
Well Stalin's of course wasn't any better.
Not sure what all the links were aimed at, but if it is to show government's inhumane and disgusting nature, it only proves that less government is better government.
"Communist nations are plagued with just about all the crimes known to the West, and a few others besides."
Have you ever heard of 'propaganda'? A great deal of what American media reported about communism was not true.
And, as I said, USSR could not have been a true communism - thus, they cannot be used as a precedent.
Of course, not, without written records that is impossible.
See! What we "know" about societies before writing is pure conjecture.
Not sure what all the links were aimed at, but if it is to show government's inhumane and disgusting nature, it only proves that less government is better government.
Hence my anarchism.
The links were there to show just how horrendous the government is; somehow, liberals overlook all those inhuman acts and think that the government only has their best interests at heart.
Even if crime did exist in a communist country, it controls all government records and doesn't any dissemination of information, so the numbers are all skewed in favor of the government.
What we "know" about societies before writing is pure conjecture.
Well, we can certainly speculate, and speculation aims towards trade even without evidence of monetary system.
The links were there to show just how horrendous the government is; somehow, liberals overlook all those inhuman acts and think that the government only has their best interests at heart.
Not sure where liberals think government is the greatest thing ever created.
Liberals think government is a benevolent father figure.
the problem with your argument is that you assume everyone is as greedy as you. if your argument held true then there would be no doctors at all in viet nam, china, or cuba, but if i am not mistaken, cuba has more doctors per capita than the usa. you should also check to see if there were doctors in the former ussr, east germany and various other communist countries. if i am not mistaken, there are more engineers, phds, and scientists in communist china than there is in capitalist usa. if your right wing theories were to hold true, then everyone would be unemployed. in fact, i can tell you that the chinese work way harder than any american would. id argue that a society with class is pointless. why should anyone have 5 cars, and 5 houses, while there is someone starving to death, or sick. just because someone cheated and got ahead at the expense of others?
Doctor and janitor essentially on the same pay grade. Who would be a doctor if they are paid the same as a janitor. It is a society without class. A society without class is pointless.
I think you hit the nail on the head there. People like you have no incentive to work towards a truly equal society because you find it necessary to have perks which give you status, and allow you to display yourself as better than others.
People like you have no incentive to work towards a truly equal society because you find it necessary to have perks which give you status, and allow you to display yourself as better than others.
That is what hard work is.
Equal Society is your argument for why doctors and janitors should have the same pay grade. Why that is quite the explosive intellectual argument.
If those who work hard in society should be not rewarded for their fruits of labor.
My father built is own business on his back, I think he should be rewarded.
So, you think that all his work should be taken and given to someone else just for a equal society.
I know a red herring when I see one, so don't use lazy writing with me.
He is rewarding himself a farmer can feed everyone in the country and the carpenter can build doors for everyone in the country including the farmer, if the farmer didn't work, how will he feed the carpenter who needs the farmers fruit of labor to make the door for the farmer, you see he is being rewarded but in a blinder way.
(By the way, I live. I hunger. Run run run.) Of course it can't, just like pure democracy can't work. Pure communism is impossible, because of the same trend that keeps popping up: People are corrupt.
Honestly, I'd have no problems with the government working to cater the people and people working together towards the same goal and sharing the wealth. Why? Because, whether people like to admit it or not, we're social creatures and we need each other to survive. In my opinion, having a government that works off of that is a pretty good idea. If I were religious I'd bring up Jesus and what the bible would tell you, but I'm sure you can figure that out on your own.
I mean, to me it sounds like a pretty damn sweet deal. Unnnnfortunately, without checks and balances and some way for the people to get involved in the government, you always run the risk of having large-scale corruption, rebellion, and several other problems that we've seen in patterns in the past. Ultimately, the goal of the government should be to protect their people, and ensure prosperity. We sometimes forget that the people who work in the government are just like us.
Right, I'm out of practice right now and rambling, so I'll wrap this up. Communism can't work, especially not in its pure form, because people will always want more. They always do. I mean, it's a very unfortunate truth, but it's true. If we could teach our children to be content with what they had and to help others, like we should be right now, I'm sure in the future a more cooperative government is possible, but never a pure communism.
There has never been communism to even say that, also it is impossible to find a dictator, in a pure communist society because communism needs democracy, the democracy stops dictators from coming to power.
That's not the problem. Some one can work harder than someone get more capital and still be equal. If someone works for an hour and gets 10 dollars and someone else works for two hours and gets 20 dollars then they are equal because the ratio imposed on them is the same. If some works for 1 hour and gets 10 dollars and someone works for 2hours and gets 30 dollars, then they are not equal.
we as human beings are WAY to shellfish to share everything. And people like power. Everyone being equal to each sounds great, awesome but in reality everyone wants to rule the world. There is always going to be someone/group that wants to take down the head honcho and show them who's really boss.
Under true communism (not the USSR), nobody will want to work. Or at least there will always be those who leech off of others. I still think it's a true paradise!
Communism is fatally flawed in several ways. It assumes that a government can control a complex economy. However, there are so many factors involved that even a massive bureaucracy cannot maintain it.
Also, it stifles innovation in the workforce. In a capitalist system, entrepreneurs are able to develop their ideas and advance those ideas and businesses associated with them because they are not limited by the government. The lure of wealth provides an incentive for all in a capitalist system because of the equal opportunity afforded all individuals. In a communist system, this does not occur, as the potential for wealth does not exist except for the limited few in government (the nomenklatura in the Soviet Union).
It would work if people were hand-picked for the society with high priorities for autodidacts, people who find fulfillment from manual and agricultural labour, and people who find fulfillment outside of making large purchases, or using class as a way to display their superiority.
The rest would have to be banished to another society, and each generation people would have to be plucked out of the society who show tendencies towards this behaviour.
"people who find fulfillment from manual and agricultural labor"
Only if they know they are getting paid more than somebody else.
"people who find fulfillment outside of making large purchases"
large purchases = wealth and wealth = power.
"The rest of the would would have to be banished to another society"
or the communist nation would isolate itself from the rest of the world, having no allies... like North Korea. They are an impoverished little country with no wealth and no power.
Communism does nothing but kill people. Russia- 20 million deaths. China 30 million deaths. Yea it's a terrific system.
how come right wingers never seem to bring up the 50 million native americans, african slaves, and australian aborigines they massacred under capitalism? not to mention world war 1 and 2 was largely fought over controlling colonies, to control resources- capitalism.
Yes. I acknowledge we did this. Territorial expansion was needed to accommodate the growing population and economy of our nation. The Spanish also wiped out the Mayans, Aztecs and the Incas. The British and many other European nations killed many indigenous populations in Africa and Asia. We also killed people in the Philippines. It's Social Darwinism. Those weak nations that cannot survive with the evolving world will die off.
african slaves
We were not the only country to have slaves, nor were we the country who treated their slaves the worst.
not to mention world war 1 and 2
Prior to both of those wars the United States maintained isolationist policies and only got involved after it was attacked.
Only if they know they are getting paid more than somebody else.
I believe I answered this already with:
people who find fulfillment outside of making large purchases
large purchases = wealth and wealth = power.
Not all people require excess power, or even displays of power.
or the communist nation would isolate itself from the rest of the world, having no allies... like North Korea. They are an impoverished little country with no wealth and no power.
Isolation wouldn't work because, obviously, a nation births people with differing personalities. It would require constant vigilance to remove people from that society who are incompatible.
Communism does nothing but kill people. Russia- 20 million deaths. China 30 million deaths. Yea it's a terrific system.
Communism is a form of economy and can also fuction as a social system. It isn't a government.
But in your mind it must follow that democracy is responsible for all the past and present strife in the western world for the last century, right?
If you are as intelligent as you claim to be, then please stop using such lazy reasoning with me.
People are motivated by money and when they have more money than somebody else they consider it a sign of power.
"isolation wouldn't work because, obviously, a nation births people with differing personalities. It would require constant vigilance to remove people from that society who incompatible."
But North Korea is still an isolated impoverished little country with no wealth and no power. Wait didn't Stalin do something like this? Yea he did! His Purges ratted out millions of supposed "enemies of the state" and sent millions to work and die in gulags. The Red Guard also did this. Ratting out and killing millions, along with the pro-communists in Vietnam.
The KGB and other secret government agencies provided constant vigilance in all aspects of life. They had agents posing as factory workers, teachers almost everything. If they heard some comment against the party they would come to your house in the middle of the night and you would never be seen again. Most families forced their kids to join pro-communist youth groups to avoid suspicion. People would rat out their friends, neighbors anybody to stop the interrogations. they would then be sentenced to either death or so many years hard labor in the gulags. The KGB didn't care if you were innocent, they had to get so many people each day or it would be their ass. Even if people were innocent they would still confess to a crime because they wouldn't dare go against the party.
"Communism is a form of economy and it can also function as a social system. It isn't a government."
A form of economy that left millions of Russian and Chinese peasants to starve. A social system that put millions of people to their deaths. If a communist party is ruling, wouldn't that make their government communist.
"But in your mind it must follow that democracy is responsible for all the past and present strife in the western world for the last century, right?"
If you said communism isn't a form of government, then why are you comparing it to a form of government? Since democracy is a product of the Enlightenment I would say it would be a big portion of the west's strife's. The other coming from capitalism. No government is perfect, but democracy is better than capitalism. Democracy and capitalism has lead to many of the past century's innovations- automobiles, airplane, space exploration, internal combustion engine, computers, cell phones, Internet, Cd's, and many industries.
"If you are as intelligent as you complain to be"
I have made no claim saying that I am more or less intelligent than anybody on this site.
"then please stop using such lazy reasoning with me "
People are motivated by money and when they have more money than somebody else they consider it a sign of power.
Again this isn't an absolute condition. Some people don't behave this way.
But North Korea is still an isolated impoverished little country with no wealth and no power. Wait didn't Stalin do something like this? Yea he did! His Purges ratted out millions of supposed "enemies of the state" and sent millions to work and die in gulags. The Red Guard also did this. Ratting out and killing millions, along with the pro-communists in Vietnam.
That's one way of accomplishing this, but I was speaking of deportation. As evidenced by:
The rest would have to be banished to another society, and each generation people would have to be plucked out of the society who show tendencies towards this behaviour.
The KGB and other secret government agencies provided constant vigilance in all aspects of life. They had agents posing as factory workers, teachers almost everything. If they heard some comment against the party they would come to your house in the middle of the night and you would never be seen again. Most families forced their kids to join pro-communist youth groups to avoid suspicion. People would rat out their friends, neighbors anybody to stop the interrogations. they would then be sentenced to either death or so many years hard labor in the gulags. The KGB didn't care if you were innocent, they had to get so many people each day or it would be their ass. Even if people were innocent they would still confess to a crime because they wouldn't dare go against the party.
Not really applicable to what I was proposing however. At best you could argue that finding the people who don't fit in this society and deporting them would be heart-wrenching to the families, and invasive to general life, but the argument that I make is that this social model cannot work for a heterogeneous society.
A form of economy that left millions of Russian and Chinese peasants to starve. A social system that put millions of people to their deaths. If a communist party is ruling, wouldn't that make their government communist.
You're mostly arguing against autocracies. North Korea is a self-proclaimed democracy, for example. Do we call democracy evil now?
If you said communism isn't a form of government, then why are you comparing it to a form of government? Since democracy is a product of the Enlightenment I would say it would be a big portion of the west's strife's. The other coming from capitalism. No government is perfect, but democracy is better than capitalism. Democracy and capitalism has lead to many of the past century's innovations- automobiles, airplane, space exploration, internal combustion engine, computers, cell phones, Internet, Cd's, and many industries.
Replace democracy with capitalism in my statement and you get the same result, that the blame is misappropriated to the wrong targets. Blame the leaders, the autocrats, corruption, etc. Blame Stalinism, or totalitarianism.
Also democracy and capitalism didn't give us those, science did. Democracy and capitalism provided an environment.
I have made no claim saying that I am more or less intelligent than anybody on this site.
Forgive me, an error occurred where I somehow mistook you for someone else. I'm still baffled how this happened as I tend to double-check these things.
I take most of my debates very seriously.
Just ignore this too, doesn't matter since your argument style differed from who I thought you were and so I assumed laziness.
Well that also happened in Korea, when families were torn apart because their family members were deported to the North or vice versa. To this day there are still people wondering if they have surviving family on the other side of the DMZ.
"At best you could argue that finding the people who don't fit in this society and deporting them would be heart-wrenching to the families..."
In Soviet Russia, their border patrol was not there to keep people out, it was there to keep people in. They didn't deport people, they sentenced them to work and die. They didn't want you to die without getting free labor out of you.
"the argument I make is that this social model cannot work for a heterogeneous society"
Absolutely. It cannot work.
"North Korea is a self-proclaimed democracy, for example. Do we call democracy evil now?"
North Korea is not recognized by the UN or anybody else as a democracy. They do not have a constitution, and they have a one party rule.
Also democracy and capitalism didn't give us those, science did. Democracy and capitalism provided an environment."
Capitalism's competitive attitude provided/s new innovations to get pushed out faster. You think Boeing was the only company to develop jets? They were competing with North-drop Grumman and other plane companies. Even after Ford created the first automobile they are in constant competition with other auto companies.
In Soviet Russia, their border patrol was not there to keep people out, it was there to keep people in. They didn't deport people, they sentenced them to work and die. They didn't want you to die without getting free labor out of you.
I wasn't proposing this.
Absolutely. It cannot work.
For a heterogeneous society.
North Korea is not recognized by the UN or anybody else as a democracy. They do not have a constitution, and they have a one party rule.
They still call themselves a democracy, just like how Stalin called Russia communist even though it was totalitarian.
Capitalism's competitive attitude provided/s new innovations to get pushed out faster. You think Boeing was the only company to develop jets? They were competing with North-drop Grumman and other plane companies. Even after Ford created the first automobile they are in constant competition with other auto companies.
Like I said, it provided an environment conducive to this.
You've completely ignored the second half of my sentence.
I said Communism is sustainable more or less, but it's not ideal.
Is that such an unfair statement?
The People's Republic of China was established 1949 and has yet to collapse. I'd say that's rather strong testimony to the sustainability of communism at least to the level that warrants acknowledging that communism is sustainable -- more or less
You've completely ignored the second half of my sentence.
Because it entertained the notion that communism was sustainable at all, it would be pointless to refute that as well.
Is that such an unfair statement?
Yes.
The People's Republic of China was established 1949 and has yet to collapse.
Because it has for all intents and purposes a capitalist society.
I'd say that's rather strong testimony to the sustainability of communism at least to the level that warrants acknowledging that communism is sustainable
See above.
Wouldn't you agree?
No. If something fails at some point, then it is not sustainable. Besides, even if China was communistic, the U.S.S.R lasted longer than 61 years - before failing.
Because it entertained the notion that communism was sustainable at all, it would be pointless to refute that as well.
Even if a Communist country sustained itself for ONE DAY it would be sustainable, at least for a 24 hour period.
So it is intellectually dishonest to make a claim as bold as communism not being sustainable at all.
Because it has for all intents and purposes a capitalist society.
Fair enough, and I would agree that a capitalist society is vastly superior to a communist one.
No. If something fails at some point, then it is not sustainable. Besides, even if China was communistic, the U.S.S.R lasted longer than 61 years - before failing.
I hate to break it to you, but NOTHING is sustainable ad infinitum. By your definition of sustainability everything from water molecules to the very universe is unsustainable.
And I agree, nothing is sustainable ad infinitum;this is why I regress my scope down to a more appropriate level and say that if the U.S.S.R. lasted for 61 years, then it was sustainable for 61 years.
Even if a Communist country sustained itself for ONE DAY it would be sustainable, at least for a 24 hour period.
Sustainable means something that will not fail, ever.
So it is intellectually dishonest to make a claim as bold as communism not being sustainable at all.
See above.
Fair enough, and I would agree that a capitalist society is vastly superior to a communist one.
Then your argument is based entirely upon (incorrect) semantics.
I hate to break it to you, but NOTHING is sustainable ad infinitum. By your definition of sustainability everything from water molecules to the very universe is unsustainable.
That is correct.
And I agree, nothing is sustainable ad infinitum;this is why I regress my scope down to a more appropriate level and say that if the U.S.S.R. lasted for 61 years, then it was sustainable for 61 years.
But it was not sustainable through those years. Socialist Russia was in constant economic decline. If something causes decline, then it is not sustainable. Hence communism cannot work. That is the issue being debated here.
There is NO time limit to the definition, so either it means, as you say, that it must be eternal, or it means that something is sustainable if it is kept in existence for even a moment.
I lean towards the later as the former renders the entire word pointless. If nothing is sustainable, then there's no point in having the word sustainable
Then your argument is based entirely upon (incorrect) semantics.
Almost. This IS a semantics debate. We are sitting in the same boat, but facing opposite directions. You say something is not sustainable unless it lasts forever, I say it's sustainable to the extent it is sustained. There's nothing "incorrect" about either stance, just a simple understanding that if nothing lasts forever then defining "sustainable" as that which never fails defeats the point of the having word sustainable.
But it was not sustainable through those years. Socialist Russia was in constant economic decline. If something causes decline, then it is not sustainable. Hence communism cannot work. That is the issue being debated here.
Even if from the start of the USSR to the bitter end was one long, painful decline, it held together the whole time. Right up until it collapsed. Perhaps it only sustained itself by sucking the wealth out of the people, but that is still sustaining. Like how a tapeworm sustains itself by sucking the life out of its host. Just because the tapeworm will eventually be the cause of its own death doesn't mean it isn't being sustained right up until its host dies.
Work is defined as Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something.
So, for something to "work" all it would have to do is put forth effort to accomplish something. Whatever its goal is. Perhaps you goal is to suck the wealth out of the people, then communism definitely works. Perhaps you goal is to create a government that can last for the better half of a century, then too communism works (depending on the host, mind you).
Wrong. To sustain is (and I quote) To keep in existence; maintain.
Sustain (verb) and sustainable (adjective) are two different words. Communism cannot be maintained (see failure of all communist states), hence it is unsustainable.
Almost. This IS a semantics debate.
It is not. I do not make semantic debates.
We are sitting in the same boat, but facing opposite directions.
Unfortunately, yours was made by communists and hence it is sinking.
You say something is not sustainable unless it lasts forever
See above.
I say it's sustainable to the extent it is sustained.
All communist states have all failed, they have not been sustained.
Even if from the start of the USSR to the bitter end was one long, painful decline, it held together the whole time.
By your quoted definition, you are wrong. If something declines then is is not being maintained.
Work is defined as Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something.
So, for something to "work" all it would have to do is put forth effort to accomplish something.
Read the note under the title. Now you truly are obsessing over semantics, to the point of being pedantic.
Is it just me, or is the process of getting notifications when you're "disputed" rather hit-and-miss lately. =/
Sustain (verb) and sustainable (adjective) are two different words. Communism cannot be maintained (see failure of all communist states), hence it is unsustainable.
Alright, so you are rather ignorant when it comes to language it seems. Sustainable is defined as that which can be sustained. I really can't figure out why you would bother looking that up yourself before taking a chance like that. =/
Sustain means to keep in existence, as I said before. Therefore, If something is kept in existence then it is sustained to the extent that it exists. This isn't even a complicated concept. If it exists then it is being maintained until it stops existing. Everything fails at some point, but in order to fail it MUST have existed in the first place. Try to wrap your head around the idea. It's not as hard as you're making it. =/
It is not. I do not make semantic debates.
You're a liar. You started debating me based on the use of the word "sustain" and you're debating me on semantics right now.
Unfortunately, yours was made by communists and hence it is sinking.
Re-read the metaphor. You seem to have failed to comprehend the word "same". ;)
All communist states have all failed, they have not been sustained.
If you define sustainability as that which is eternal, then I agree, nothing is sustainable. If you're smart enough to understand that nothing lasts forever then you start using the word "sustain" relative to the time something is sustained.
You seem to have some sort of hang-up on the word sustain. If it bothers you so damn much then just re-read my comments while mentally replacing the word "sustain" with "uphold" or "withstand" or whatever non "sustain" word you don't have this irrational view of. =/
By your quoted definition, you are wrong. If something declines then is is not being maintained.
Do you not understand how a dictionary works? You clearly don't as anyone with enough intelligence to work one would have used it instead of constantly asserting my definitions are inconsistent regardless of what the dictionary actually says.
Maintain: To keep in an existing state, carry on.
It doesn't matter if it's getting better or worse, if it is kept in existence then it is being maintained to the extent that it exists. Once it no longer exists it is no longer being maintained, but until then it absolutely IS maintained.
Read the note under the title. Now you truly are obsessing over semantics, to the point of being pedantic.
You're just complaining cuz' you were wrong. ;)
If I broke your nose and you yelled at me for it, would it make sense for me to say "jeez, why are you obsessing over your nose?"
Your whole argument against me is one of semantics. You say I'm wrong because I use the word "sustain" and by YOUR definition of that word, nothing is sustainable. So of COURSE I'm going to respond in a semantic manner because you are finding fault in what I write based on your personal definitions of these words.
Do you want an apology from me for not assuming you were using non colloquial definitions? Remember, YOU started debating ME. It's your responsibility to define your own terms if you chose to use words other than how the dictionary uses them.
I'm mature enough to admit that if you define sustainability as that which never fails then Communism is non-sustainable (if only because by that definition NOTHING is). Is it so difficult for you to admit that if you use the word the same way the dictionary (and nearly everyone else) does then the sustainability of something is based on the time something has spent sustained?
Is it just me, or is the process of getting notifications when you're "disputed" rather hit-and-miss lately.
It has happened to me on occasion.
Alright, so you are rather ignorant when it comes to language it seems.
My linguistic capabilities are far in excess of your own, I assure you.
Sustainable is defined as that which can be sustained.
Communism could not be sustained (i.e it failed) and hence is not sustainable. I cannot see the issue.
Therefore, If something is kept in existence then it is sustained to the extent that it exists.
Neither Russia nor China have maintained their communist positions.
You're a liar.
Careful. Remember that I have the power to ban you. I will not tolerate being called a liar. Sir, I demand an apology.
You started debating me based on the use of the word "sustain" and you're debating me on semantics right now.
That is because I am stubborn, but the debate (i.e the entity within which we are arguing) is not semantic.
Re-read the metaphor. You seem to have failed to comprehend the word "same".
Then we are both sinking, from your end.
If you define sustainability as that which is eternal, then I agree, nothing is sustainable. If you're smart enough to understand that nothing lasts forever then you start using the word "sustain" relative to the time something is sustained.
I am being pedantic, whereas you are obsessing over semantics. I propose and end to this stupidity.
Do you not understand how a dictionary works?
No, I do not not understand how a dictionary works.
You clearly don't as anyone with enough intelligence to work one would have used it instead of constantly asserting my definitions are inconsistent regardless of what the dictionary actually says.
Your definition of sustain is correct. Your perception is wrong. If, for example (and do not expect me to pay any more attention to this area of the argument) we survive by eating potatoes. We have no means of replacing those potatoes, but we eat them nonetheless. Following? While our activities will not deplete the supply of potatoes for an undisclosed period of time, eventually, without being replaced, they will run out. Hence our actions are unsustainable, despite our maintenance of the habit. Understand? Now imagine that we are communist (or more correctly socialists) and the potatoes are money.
It doesn't matter if it's getting better or worse, if it is kept in existence then it is being maintained to the extent that it exists.
If you maintain something. you do not allow it to degrade. How many definitions will I have to explain to you?
You're just complaining cuz' you were wrong. ;)
That sounds like an empty argument to me. And I am not amused by your misuse of punctuation to simulate the likeness of a winking face.
If I broke your nose and you yelled at me for it, would it make sense for me to say "jeez, why are you obsessing over your nose?"
I apologise for breaking your nose, now drop it before I break something far more important.
Your whole argument against me is one of semantics. You say I'm wrong because I use the word "sustain" and by YOUR definition of that word, nothing is sustainable. So of COURSE I'm going to respond in a semantic manner because you are finding fault in what I write based on your personal definitions of these words.
You have yet to raise any meaningful arguments as to how communism is a viable socio-economic system. I, however, have spent a great deal of time discussing it with people of superior intellect to you. I am only entertaining your notion that we are holding a debate because I always have to have the last word.
Do you want an apology from me for not assuming you were using non colloquial definitions?
How are my definitions colloquial? I have not (as I recall) disputed your definitions, merely your interpretations of those you found after googling the words in question.
I'm mature enough to admit that if you define sustainability as that which never fails then Communism is non-sustainable (if only because by that definition NOTHING is).
I have already admitted to being pedantic.
YOU started debating ME. It's your responsibility to define your own terms if you chose to use words other than how the dictionary uses them.
I have addressed this point several times already.
Is it so difficult for you to admit that if you use the word the same way the dictionary (and nearly everyone else) does
The masses are frequently wrong. Look at the word "oblivious", for example. i presume, as you claim to have linguistic powers beyond my own, that you know of what I speak.
then the sustainability of something is based on the time something has spent sustained?
Communism failed, therefore it was not sustainable. If we are to measure it against human lives, for example, then it lasted for about as long as one. That removes its claim to sustainability. I am swiftly growing tired of you and your obsession with this analysis being incorrect.
My linguistic capabilities are far in excess of your own, I assure you.
Ha! Evidently NOT! XD
Communism could not be sustained (i.e it failed) and hence is not sustainable. I cannot see the issue.
Ya, you keep repeating this. I've already told you, if you absolutely cannot accept the word "sustain", for whatever reason, then replace the word in your head with one you don't have this hang up over.
You know how I use this word, you know how the dictionary uses this word. Your definition is the only one that doesn't make sense.
Neither Russia nor China have maintained their communist positions.
This the same "point" you keep making. "If it failed, it wasn't sustained". Why is it so hard for you to accept that things are sustained to the extent that they are kept in existence?
You're saying that if something failed then it wasn't sustained. By definition though, if something has been kept in existence then it was sustained. So, saying that nothing is sustainable is the same as saying nothing can exist.
Careful. Remember that I have the power to ban you. I will not tolerate being called a liar. Sir, I demand an apology.
Well, you lied. If you lack the maturity to handle being called out then by all means ban me. It'll just show how insecure you are as far as I'm concerned.
That is because I am stubborn, but the debate (i.e the entity within which we are arguing) is not semantic.
Then you admit that you only refuse to accept a concept as simple as defining somethings sustainability based on how long it's sustained because you're too stubborn to admit you jumped the gun.
I am being pedantic, whereas you are obsessing over semantics. I propose and end to this stupidity.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but I already proposed this. Actually I proposed it in the very comment you just responded to. What exactly did you think I meant when I said you should replace the word "sustain" with whatever non-sustain word you don't have this bizarre hang up on? =/
No, I do not not understand how a dictionary works.
When you're argument is based on a words definition It helps to use the dictionary. The easiest way is to just Google the word in question and add the word "definition". You'll get tons of pages of online dictionaries defining said word.
Your definition of sustain is correct. Your perception is wrong. If, for example (and do not expect me to pay any more attention to this area of the argument)
Cup-out =p
If, for example we survive by eating potatoes. We have no means of replacing those potatoes, but we eat them nonetheless. Following? While our activities will not deplete the supply of potatoes for an undisclosed period of time, eventually, without being replaced, they will run out. Hence our actions are unsustainable, despite our maintenance of the habit. Understand? Now imagine that we are communist (or more correctly socialists) and the potatoes are money.
If your lifestyle is based on eating potatoes then until you are out of potatoes your potato-eating lifestyle is being sustained. Eventually it will be unsustained, but for the time period where you have potatoes to the time period you don't it is being sustained.
If you maintain something. you do not allow it to degrade. How many definitions will I have to explain to you?
No. Go read the definition of the word maintain. All you must do is keep it in existence. If it's degrading, then you're just not maintaining it well, but maintaining none the less.
That sounds like an empty argument to me. And I am not amused by your misuse of punctuation to simulate the likeness of a winking face.
You'll find I respond to empty arguments likewise. ;)
I apologise for breaking your nose, now drop it before I break something far more important.
Along with your lack of linguistic comprehension you seem to have great difficulty with pronouns. =/
Not only have you missed the point but you have the characters in this hypothetical situation backwards.
You have yet to raise any meaningful arguments as to how communism is a viable socio-economic system. I, however, have spent a great deal of time discussing it with people of superior intellect to you. I am only entertaining your notion that we are holding a debate because I always have to have the last word.
LOL! How shameless you are in admitting your faults! Not only have you mistaken what I've been trying to say but you admit you're only talking to me because you lack the maturity to let something as small as a semantics debate go!
You're a child, and not in a good way. XD
How are my definitions colloquial? I have not (as I recall) disputed your definitions, merely your interpretations of those you found after googling the words in question.
I'm beginning to wonder if your actually retarded and not just pretending to be so. =/
Besides, as I've already told you, but once again you fail to comprehend; the definition of sustain has no set time limit. It's up to you to decide. So either you can go the path I have and say something is sustained to the extend it is sustained (which is the logical path), or you can do what you have done and say nothing is sustained unless it lasts forever.
The obvious problem with your stance is that you've defeated the purpose of the word "sustain". If nothing can be sustainable then why have the word? There is no reason given your definition.
I have already admitted to being pedantic.
Then why are you still debating me? if you admit you were wrong then you have nothing more to talk with me about.
I have addressed this point several times already.
Irrelevant. You based your argument against me based on how you use the word sustain without checking the dictionary or even asking me for clarification the how I used the word.
This was your mistake.
The masses are frequently wrong. Look at the word "oblivious", for example. i presume, as you claim to have linguistic powers beyond my own, that you know of what I speak.
Non sequitur. Language is an emergent phenomenon. Therefore, whatever collective use of a word is becomes its colloquial value. The dictionary changes to meet how people use words, not the other way around.
In matters of language, the masses cannot be "wrong" because language is based on how the masses use these phonemes.
Communism failed, therefore it was not sustainable. If we are to measure it against human lives, for example, then it lasted for about as long as one. That removes its claim to sustainability. I am swiftly growing tired of you and your obsession with this analysis being incorrect.
As though I care if you're growing tired. XD
I'm not forcing you to talk to me, you are doing that yourself. Maybe you should just ban me, you'd get the precious "last word" you childishly pride yourself on and you wont have to continue with this pointless debate that YOU started. XD
Nothing you just said removes the claim of sustainability over the time communist countries remained sustained. Exactly how does comparing the life span of the U.S.S.R. to the life of a human's accomplish that?
Communism in Russia took over in 1917, it has already collapsed in 1991. I'd say it's a rather strong testimony to the idea that communism is not sustainable. Same will happen to North Korea.
The only reason the Republic of China is still surviving is because their leadership realized in time that it is the principles of capitalism that would keep their economy going. Right now China cannot possibly be called communist. It's completely capitalist. What they name themselves does not matter. They operate like a capitalist economy. Their government will sometimes exercise power and prohibit a thing or two, but in general they let their economy run capitalist.
Also, don't forget that communism is basically an agreement among members of a society about equal everything. Nobody makes more than any other, there is no money etc. Complete self-government without official government body. It's practically impossible to run anything larger than a village that way. In fact, communism by definition is one of the forms of anarchism. It never really was able to sustain itself except for a small group of people for a short time (some utopian group tried it once and failed). It was impossible to create even though bolshevicks in Russia tried. They immediately realized it would not work in pure form on a large country and went with the "next best thing"--Soviet Socialism, which still failed. USSR was never truly communist. USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
If Communism in Russia lasted from 1917 until 1991, then it was sustainable from 1917 until 1991.
Perhaps that is the limit of the sustainability of Communism, but it was still sustained for that time.
You bring up a good point though, about how pure Communism couldn't work. But, I would argue that pure any political ideology couldn't work. Actually, I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist and don't believe any form of government works better than the free market.
My point is, the USSR was MUCH more Communist than say, the U.S., just as the U.S. was much more capitalistic than the USSR, but the USSR sustained itself from 1917 to 1991 thus has some sustainability.
the u.s. has made countless efforts to bring down communist china, through malicious and evil methods, but have failed. i'd say the prc is as tough as nails, and the people genuinely love their govt.
Technically it can. There is no reason it could not outside of nepitism and natural human greed. It hasn't thus far because of those reasons and circumstance.
However, democracy seems to work better.
And apparently there are a lot of people here talking about a nation's economy and not their government, I'd like to remind them that the US has elected every leader in power now and there is absolutely no sane reason to think that is going to end any time soon.
The systems of communism and democracy are not exclusive, and interestingly so, the two are required (controversial) for a functioning anarcho-communism.
But have you not studied ants? They are democratic communists, and very productive. Though relatively unintelligent, they accomish so much, and mostly all the reason for this is their system (and their impressive strength, of course).
No cause china is not communist and if it was then it wouldn't collapse. What many people don't realize is that capitalism leads to poverty and is very unfair.
Neither are sustainable in their current form because people keep popping out babies on a planet with limited resources. Communism works on the premise all of our resources will be infinite forever, and whoever gets the most of everything is the winner. Socialism has been demonized but the premise of equal sharing is more conducive to a sustainable future. Taking only what we need and sharing the rest, is the best route on this tiny planet.
Capitalism is survival of the fittest, and we really shouldn't be competing amongst ourselves like primitive wild animals. Communism can work with some tweaks, and only when people realize it's not all about what they want.
Most people who die in communist countries die as a result of sanctions, and embargos imposed by capitalist countries. The capitalist countries also impose sanctions often times on non compliant countries such as Iran, and Iraq, starving millions to death. The u.S is currently starving to death Hatians. The u.S sold food to Hatians real cheap, putting the local Hatian farmers out of business, then the american capitalists jacked up the prices, and Hatians are starving.
Being a communist supporter (not a communist), you would think I would say it works, but now it doesn't work not because of the ideology but because of all the greed in people. I think it might work in the future. In my opinion there are steps to achieve communism.
1: Start a communist party
2: Start petitions
3:Prove communism
4: Clear up misconceptions
5: Discuss the idea with neutral people, tell them about all the good things and how you can help remove the bad things.
6:Become allies with communist nations
7: Get more people in (politely)
8: Be honest but show no signs of hate.
9: Help other countries
10: Become allies with those other countries.
11: Help those other countries to become communists
12: When you have at least 12 allied and communist countries, start an organization.
13: Require permission to test communism on inhabited pieces of land to proves communism is the way to go.
Actually it can. Soviet Union was also a superpower, and look at how those communist soldiers fought the Nazis. Without the Soviet Union, the world might be already under Facist control. Also look at People's Republic of China, it's also going to be the next superpower. It also lend money to USA. Without China, Europe and USA would suffer economic downfall
Communism is based on the collectivism of all within in it and therefore instead of individual goals it's achieving success together in the belief that like within a football team it's about working together in order to share the ending success and although people may receive more praise they don't receive more 'trophy's'.
As well if the state provides everything it creates greater leisure time for individuals to spend with their family and friends or in self betterment. As how often in a capitalist society have fathers worked from before the kids wake to after they go to bed or working 2/3 job's to make the bills.
Communism if done right creates a healthier society in the terms both socially and mentally. It should mean Less crime would be committed as you have what you need. Better social and family relations are created. Decrease in mental health. Just to name a few.
The common misconception is that one 'dictator' would abuse their power however through having still a democratic government electing such MP's to evaluate what needs to be done in which no one takes charge allows there to be a fair system.
It's worked for many years often however in a smaller scale such as tribes, aborigines, native Americans. Despite with a 'chief' as such they receive no more than the rest of there partners.
Would it work for America or any large countries. Not instantly, no, but if it were to move more and more socialist every year then maybe in 50/60/70 years time it would be possible. However Communism in todays society is more of an ideology with our world now so unequal.
