Communism - Yea or Nay?

[l0l0lpur32]

Life isn't "fair" and no-one can make it "fair", no matter how much you punish people for being successful

[l0l0lpur32]

I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to keep the rest $82,500 dollars as a reward.

 

OK how about "Because other people are in need of that money"!!!

 

Isn't that a good reason he shouldnt get to keep the money?

 

So you suggest just stealing all that money off them? Progressive taxation is a necessary evil but stealing ALL the money is just too far

[Shinjula]

I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to keep the rest $82,500 dollars as a reward.

 

OK how about "Because other people are in need of that money"!!!

 

Isn't that a good reason he shouldnt get to keep the money?

 

So you suggest just stealing all that money off them? Progressive taxation is a necessary evil but stealing ALL the money is just too far

 

Lol its not stealing, its just a different way of living, does a wife steal from a husband when she uses the money hes earnt to buy herself food? No of course not, its called sharing.

 

And as for life not being fair, its only not fair if we dont make it fair.

[l0l0lpur32]

I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to keep the rest $82,500 dollars as a reward.

 

OK how about "Because other people are in need of that money"!!!

 

Isn't that a good reason he shouldnt get to keep the money?

 

So you suggest just stealing all that money off them? Progressive taxation is a necessary evil but stealing ALL the money is just too far

 

Lol its not stealing, its just a different way of living, does a wife steal from a husband when she uses the money hes earnt to buy herself food? No of course not, its called sharing.

 

And as for life not being fair, its only not fair if we dont make it fair.

 

I suppose people being put in gulags etc in the USSR was "just a different way of living" then?

[Shinjula]

Some people have less abilities, intelligence and utility than other people. Some human beings are less of an asset to society due to their personal traits, professional skills, physical size, etc... That's not discrimination, that's a fact which has existed since the dawn of time.

 

Im sorry but dont you think its immoral to judge one person as more worthy than another, what happened to all men (people) are born equal? And I dont mean in the literal sense but we are all human beings here. Just because someone is more intelligent than me doesnt mean they are a more worthwhile person than i am. Just because someone can work out how to get a bigger slice of the pie than me doesnt mean they deserve it.

 

 

 

and AGAIN you are also ignoring the fact that wage is NOT correlated to how much of an asset to society someone is, otherwise nurse would be paid more than call centre managers.

 

 

 

Everyone can't have equal compensation. If there is no incentive to risk capital or allocate time into creating innovations, there wont be any jobs to begin with.

 

Again we're back to incentive which ive answered before in this thread, there are incentives beyond appeasing personal wealth

[Shinjula]

I suppose people being put in gulags etc in the USSR was "just a different way of living" then?

 

Lol, great arguing technique, perhaps since I'm left wing youd like to compare me to hitler as as well?

 

 

 

I'm sorry but Gulags are not an inherent part of communism

[l0l0lpur32]

I suppose people being put in gulags etc in the USSR was "just a different way of living" then?

 

Lol, great arguing technique, perhaps since I'm left wing youd like to compare me to hitler as as well?

 

 

 

I'm sorry but Gulags are not an inherent part of communism

 

Why has every communist state, EVER had them in some shape or form then?

[Shinjula]

I suppose people being put in gulags etc in the USSR was "just a different way of living" then?

 

Lol, great arguing technique, perhaps since I'm left wing youd like to compare me to hitler as as well?

 

 

 

I'm sorry but Gulags are not an inherent part of communism

 

Why has every communist state, EVER had them in some shape or form then?

 

They havent, you're only looking at a certain type of communist police state and assuming thats what constitutes communism.

 

 

 

Most modern marriages are a form of communism, and your unlikely to find a gulag anywhere in sight, most tribal societies are communistic in nature and equally lacking in gulags.

 

 

 

If your looking for a reason why no large countries are pure communist its because it requires more technology and wealth than most countries are capable of, you have to have complete mass communication systems to make a true communism work and we are only just getting to the state where we have voting machines and they are still at a primitive and untrusted state.

 

But smaller communisms are visible all around the world in all sorts of place and without a gulag in sight.

[l0l0lpur32]

I suppose people being put in gulags etc in the USSR was "just a different way of living" then?

 

Lol, great arguing technique, perhaps since I'm left wing youd like to compare me to hitler as as well?

 

 

 

I'm sorry but Gulags are not an inherent part of communism

 

Why has every communist state, EVER had them in some shape or form then?

 

They havent, you're only looking at a certain type of communist police state and assuming thats what constitutes communism.

 

 

 

Most modern marriages are a form of communism, and your unlikely to find a gulag anywhere in sight, most tribal societies are communistic in nature and equally lacking in gulags.

 

 

 

If your looking for a reason why no large countries are pure communist its because it requires more technology and wealth than most countries are capable of, you have to have complete mass communication systems to make a true communism work and we are only just getting to the state where we have voting machines and they are still at a primitive and untrusted state.

 

But smaller communisms are visible all around the world in all sorts of place and without a gulag in sight.

 

Difference: marriage is by choice. The main reason why communism is impossible is because it'd require everyone to agree with it (or to be forced to agree with it).

[Shinjula]

Difference: marriage is by choice. The main reason why communism is impossible is because it'd require everyone to agree with it (or to be forced to agree with it).

 

I'm sorry, adding qualifiers afterwards changes the nature of what you want answering, I'm not prescient. Are there any other qualifers you wish to add?

 

 

 

I really dont get how you think this affects the argument though, given I'm wanting to create a utopian ideal communistic society, why would I want anyone ther who doesnt want to be there?

 

Further more even if it is by choice thats still a communist example not involving gulags.

 

Even furthermore what about the many many tribal societies I mentioned?

[l0l0lpur32]

Difference: marriage is by choice. The main reason why communism is impossible is because it'd require everyone to agree with it (or to be forced to agree with it).

 

I'm sorry, adding qualifiers afterwards changes the nature of what you want answering, I'm not prescient. Are there any other qualifers you wish to add?

 

 

 

I really dont get how you think this affects the argument though, given I'm wanting to create a utopian ideal communistic society, why would I want anyone ther who doesnt want to be there?

 

Further more even if it is by choice thats still a communist example not involving gulags.

 

Even furthermore what about the many many tribal societies I mentioned?

 

Deport/throw in gulags the ones who don't want to be part of it eh?

[BlueLancer]

Just because someone is more intelligent than me doesnt mean they are a more worthwhile person than i am. Just because someone can work out how to get a bigger slice of the pie than me doesnt mean they deserve it.

 

 

 

 

That's exactly how the world works; The only core thing that matters is force and implementation of plans. Whoever is the smartest and strongest has always gotten advantages.

 

 

 

I don't think it's "fair". It's just what reality is; Nothing will ever change that. Even if political parties & formal centralized power ceased to be, whoever had access to the most weapons and persuaded the most people to fight for him would get a bigger slice of the pie than you or me.

 

 

 

What's "fair" is only hypothetical semantics and has nothing to do with objective reality.. Is it fair that wolfs tear apart sheep? Is it fair bears kill small fish, or that lions get to intimidate & eat every other animal in the jungle? Every structure has to have bottom feeders and something at the top. Absolute equality is an inexistent feature in nature.

 

 

 

Again we're back to incentive which ive answered before in this thread, there are incentives beyond appeasing personal wealth

 

 

 

Why spend 8 years getting the necessary degrees to become a neurosurgeon when a bricklayer with 2 weeks of experience gets the same wage? It just makes absolutely no sense. Even Cuba which is strictly communist and socialist, recently removed wage restrictions[1] due to skilled labor moving abroad for better wages.

 

 

 

I don't know where you can find thousands of idealistic doctors willing to work at minimum wage, but most people have families and material dreams & already moved out of countries like Cuba due to the inefficient system causing morale problems.

 

 

 

HAVANA (Reuters) - Communist Cuba is revamping the state wage system to create more incentive by allowing workers to earn as much as they can, local media said on Thursday, in the latest sign new President Raul Castro wants to improve the country's economic performance.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Difference: marriage is by choice. The main reason why communism is impossible is because it'd require everyone to agree with it (or to be forced to agree with it).

 

And I suppose capitalism is any different? Just because something isn't forced through the barrel of a gun doesn't mean it isn't forced nonetheless.

 

 

 

I don't recall ever having any power over the lack of regulation in the banking system, and to add insult to injury, I'm gonna have to bail the banks out through tax. Some choice to live outside of capitalism there.

[l0l0lpur32]

Difference: marriage is by choice. The main reason why communism is impossible is because it'd require everyone to agree with it (or to be forced to agree with it).

 

And I suppose capitalism is any different? Just because something isn't forced through the barrel of a gun doesn't mean it isn't forced nonetheless.

 

 

 

I don't recall ever having any power over the lack of regulation in the banking system, and to add insult to injury, I'm gonna have to bail the banks out through tax. Some choice to live outside of capitalism there.

 

You are using the downsides of government intervention as an argument AGAINST capitalism?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Difference: marriage is by choice. The main reason why communism is impossible is because it'd require everyone to agree with it (or to be forced to agree with it).

 

And I suppose capitalism is any different? Just because something isn't forced through the barrel of a gun doesn't mean it isn't forced nonetheless.

 

 

 

I don't recall ever having any power over the lack of regulation in the banking system, and to add insult to injury, I'm gonna have to bail the banks out through tax. Some choice to live outside of capitalism there.

 

You are using the downsides of government intervention as an argument AGAINST capitalism?

 

No, my point was fairly clear. Whether or not you choose to address it is your choice though.

 

 

 

As far as government intervention goes, the government should have stepped in far earlier than it did with Northern Rock, and ended the ludicrous practice of giving money to people who cannot realistically afford to repay it, just to get them on the 'property ladder'. Only, if any one dared try to suggest that in Parliament, people such as yourself would whine because it's an infringement of free market economics, and those oh poor shareholders would lose out.

 

 

 

If it was a government owned bank, I wouldn't mind paying tax payers money to keep it running. The fact these banks are privately owned and I'm paying to keep them up is unacceptable to me.

[BlueLancer]

 

If it was a government owned bank, I wouldn't mind paying tax payers money to keep it running. The fact these banks are privately owned and I'm paying to keep them up is unacceptable to me.

 

 

 

While I support capitalism due to it's effectiveness, couldn't agree more with the above...

 

 

 

Why would anyone support bailing out private banks with tax money, corporations that don't even answer to the british/american people, but to foreign shareholders only interested in maximum profit & dividends?

 

 

 

If they were government owned, that'd mean their main responsibility is ensuring maximum benefit for the society. A lot of those banks are not.

 

 

 

By paying taxes for a massive, multi-billion dollar bailout, you also line up the pockets of failed bankers with even more cash and bonuses they didn't deserve. They're getting away with failure & getting paid, only because of their connections. It's sickening.

[Shinjula]

Just because someone is more intelligent than me doesnt mean they are a more worthwhile person than i am. Just because someone can work out how to get a bigger slice of the pie than me doesnt mean they deserve it.

 

 

 

 

That's exactly how the world works; The only core thing that matters is force and implementation of plans. Whoever is the smartest and strongest has always gotten advantages.

 

 

 

I don't think it's "fair". It's just what reality is; Nothing will ever change that. Even if political parties & formal centralized power ceased to be, whoever had access to the most weapons and persuaded the most people to fight for him would get a bigger slice of the pie than you or me.

 

 

 

What's "fair" is only hypothetical semantics and has nothing to do with objective reality.. Is it fair that wolfs tear apart sheep? Is it fair bears kill small fish, or that lions get to intimidate & eat every other animal in the jungle? Every structure has to have bottom feeders and something at the top. Absolute equality is an inexistent feature in nature.

 

 

 

Then I'm sorry but I want absolutely nothing to do with you as a person. I dont *really* mean this as harsh as it sounds, but that sort of thing is completely antithetical to how I want to live my life and the sort of country I want to live in.

 

People who make blanket judgements about what 'reality' is are almost always mistaken as there is no 'consensus reality' other than that which we make ourselves, and if thats the sort of world you wish to live in then i'm quite happy living elsewhere.

 

 

 

We are conscious beings and we can chose to strive together to build the sort of world we want, or we can languish in power trips and egoism.

 

We do not have to accept what is, we have choice.

 

 

 

As for the entirely of nature being against it thats a very shallow view of the complexity of nature, there are in fact many many forms of life who work precisely in an opposite way to that, coral in the great barrier reef works in very communistic way, the cells in your own body also work through co-operation, if they didnt you couldnt exist. Life is more complex than you can imagine and no blanket statements will ever be appropriate.

 

On the other hand, thanks for mentioning biology cos we really should bring that into the debate, since "Communism doesnt work" comes up so frequently (it seems we have to repeatedly argue it on every other page) and the great barrier reef is an ideal example of millions upon billions of organisms operating under communistic principles (each to its need, each to its ability) for generation after generation, estimates of its age seem to be about 500,000 years, not bad operating on a system which supposedly "doesnt work"

[l0l0lpur32]

Difference: marriage is by choice. The main reason why communism is impossible is because it'd require everyone to agree with it (or to be forced to agree with it).

 

And I suppose capitalism is any different? Just because something isn't forced through the barrel of a gun doesn't mean it isn't forced nonetheless.

 

 

 

I don't recall ever having any power over the lack of regulation in the banking system, and to add insult to injury, I'm gonna have to bail the banks out through tax. Some choice to live outside of capitalism there.

 

You are using the downsides of government intervention as an argument AGAINST capitalism?

 

No, my point was fairly clear. Whether or not you choose to address it is your choice though.

 

 

 

As far as government intervention goes, the government should have stepped in far earlier than it did with Northern Rock, and ended the ludicrous practice of giving money to people who cannot realistically afford to repay it, just to get them on the 'property ladder'. Only, if any one dared try to suggest that in Parliament, people such as yourself would whine because it's an infringement of free market economics, and those oh poor shareholders would lose out.

 

 

 

If it was a government owned bank, I wouldn't mind paying tax payers money to keep it running. The fact these banks are privately owned and I'm paying to keep them up is unacceptable to me.

 

Because they didn't start it, right?

[RichieMcD]

I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to keep the rest $82,500 dollars as a reward.

 

OK how about "Because other people are in need of that money"!!!

 

Isn't that a good reason he shouldnt get to keep the money?

 

So you suggest just stealing all that money off them? Progressive taxation is a necessary evil but stealing ALL the money is just too far

 

Lol its not stealing, its just a different way of living, does a wife steal from a husband when she uses the money hes earnt to buy herself food? No of course not, its called sharing.

 

And as for life not being fair, its only not fair if we dont make it fair.

 

 

 

Then it should be the choice of the wealthy citizen if they wish to "share" the wealth and if they don't, there's a difference between family using your money and the state using your money without your general consent.

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned Capitalism is one of the fairest forms, those who work hard and are determined will succeed in life, those who take the backseat and coast along will not. It's not fair for the hardworking to be penalised for those who haven't.

 

 

 

Your argument of lesser intelligence is pretty false to a certain extent, there's many situations where the unintelligent have vastly succeeded in life while not being "book smart". Ireland's wealthiest citizen left school at 14 and his first business consisted of a gravel pit, a digger and a truck. Now today he's in the top 50 of the wealthiest men, his only form of intelligence was his business sense.

[assassin_696]

I will just say again that these are not my best arguments against Capitalism but since whenever I put forward my best arguments they get ignored - and I really do suspect that because there isnt a good answer to them.

 

 

 

That being that Capitalism creates a system where some people are rich and some people are poor and many of the reasons which divide them are arbitary and to me thats simply unnacceptable.

 

 

 

I'll cut to what you consider to the chase. Yes, the wage differentials can be huge in capitalism, but what if the bottom rung of the ladder is still higher than what could be achieved under communism? A trickle down effect inevitable occurs in capitalism when the prosperous recycle their wealth back into the market and so bring up the wealth of everybody on the ladder.

 

 

 

This doesn't mean that the ultimate goal is that the bottom rung reaches the same level as the top rung. That'll never happen. But when the bottom rung is achieving by and large the same opportunities, healthcare, education and support that would be afforded to the top rung then I can't see what the problem is. Some people will go on to become more successful than others. But they may have worked hard, and they're simply being rewarded for it.

[Shinjula]

I'll cut to what you consider to the chase. Yes, the wage differentials can be huge in capitalism, but what if the bottom rung of the ladder is still higher than what could be achieved under communism? A trickle down effect inevitable occurs in capitalism when the prosperous recycle their wealth back into the market and so bring up the wealth of everybody on the ladder.

 

 

 

This doesn't mean that the ultimate goal is that the bottom rung reaches the same level as the top rung. That'll never happen. But when the bottom rung is achieving by and large the same opportunities, healthcare, education and support that would be afforded to the top rung then I can't see what the problem is. Some people will go on to become more successful than others. But they may have worked hard, and they're simply being rewarded for it.

I could accept that if it werent the case that the richest nations on earth, like america and the uk didnt have so many homeless.

 

Really for nations as rich as us getting rid of the homeless problem shou'd be a doddle.

[munkis]

im myself an active communist irl this is a big topic so i dunno what to really put in too my yea so much could be said

 

 

 

but yea long live socialism :thumbsup: for the freedome of us who dont got any now

 

we are the majority

 

 

 

and current overproduction crises that always occur in capitalism just proves it capitalism is doomed to fail to bad its always us the poor who have to pay these cirses with unemployment etc

 

 

 

and to all who argue about the wages of the "middle layer of society" lawyers and doctors u are missing the point they arent relevent at all the relevents is the capitalists who own the companys doesent even work and live like paraistes of the workers

 

its between these two groups proletarians against the burgoise the main fraction and battle exists

[Tom_Servo]

Communism works on paper, but not in practice. While everyone is equal, some will always be more equal than others. It's been proved time and time again that communism cannot work due to the greediness of the Human race. But that very greediness is what makes capitalism succeed. The people on the bottom want more, so they work their way up through hard work. They may not make it to the top, but undoubtedly they will end off in a better place than which they started. In socialism nobody has that chance. They can't move up no matter how hard they work. They are forever bound to their condition because they don't reap the benefits of THEIR work. They can still starve, but they can't get rich.

 

 

 

Because of Human materialistic dreams, people will work harder. But if you take away any possibility of achieving those dreams, people will stop working. If you have no motivation, why do it? For the greater good? Mankind as a whole doesn't believe in the greater good. Maybe a few, or maybe even a lot of people really, sincerely do, but there is ALWAYS someone who want more for themselves. People need to be able to see that what benefits the whole benefits themselves, but there is always someone who won't. And that's all it takes to weak a socialist society.

[RichieMcD]

I'll cut to what you consider to the chase. Yes, the wage differentials can be huge in capitalism, but what if the bottom rung of the ladder is still higher than what could be achieved under communism? A trickle down effect inevitable occurs in capitalism when the prosperous recycle their wealth back into the market and so bring up the wealth of everybody on the ladder.

 

 

 

This doesn't mean that the ultimate goal is that the bottom rung reaches the same level as the top rung. That'll never happen. But when the bottom rung is achieving by and large the same opportunities, healthcare, education and support that would be afforded to the top rung then I can't see what the problem is. Some people will go on to become more successful than others. But they may have worked hard, and they're simply being rewarded for it.

I could accept that if it werent the case that the richest nations on earth, like america and the uk didnt have so many homeless.

 

Really for nations as rich as us getting rid of the homeless problem shou'd be a doddle.

 

 

 

The majority homeless (For Ireland anyway) became homeless through their own faults, drug addictions and alcohol abuse. Why should the government bail people out who became homeless through their own faults and will most likely relapse again, it's not fair to the taxpayer.

[Ginger_Warrior]

The majority homeless (For Ireland anyway) became homeless through their own faults, drug addictions and alcohol abuse. Why should the government bail people out who became homeless through their own faults and will most likely relapse again, it's not fair to the taxpayer.

 

I call it a principle, you know, human compassion and all. I guess that's really what this whole debate boils down to. You either buy into society helping the needy, through actions or taxation, or you don't.