Thread: Re-writing Communism

Originally Posted by Invader

Would "is still failing" be more correct? I thought the current real world examples (Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and North Korea) would suffice. Please remember that China is running on a mixed economy and is utilizing free market principles.

First of all, although these countries implement some communist policies, I have already explained in previous posts why I wouldn't label them communist (mostly due to the lack of power to the masses, which is the purpose of communism). But just to humor you, you have to take a look at the big picture... Cuba is still under an archaic US trade embargo. It is not a nation rich in natural resources, yet its economy is still superior to neighboring capitalist Haiti, or Nicaragua, or Guatemala.

Vietnam is a third world nation, with an economy similar to the neighboring, capitalist, Philippines.

North Korea is riddled with international sanctions, it can't trade with anyone, and it doesn't have nearly enough resources to support itself.

By contrast, the socialist countries of Europe are doing quite well for themselves, not quite communism but it shows that capitalism isn't the only answer.

Did I really bash globalization? Can you please quote where I did that?

I got that from: "The large pieces of land that are bought in third world countries to grow luxury crops for export essentially starve the local people, but it's due solely to the fact that there are no regulations in place to help the people on the lower end of the social ladder; because money means more to those in higher positions than the well being of the people they allegedly govern."

Note that capitalist policies entail a lack of government regulation, it lets its corporations run rampant (huge growth at a social price).

More specifically: Prevent those in power from hurting those not in power. Yes. The government exists for the well being of its people.
I'm sorry if you find that concept difficult to swallow.

Please don't barge into the middle of a conversation with a bunch of assumptions. If you'd have read my previous posts, you'd have seen that I've explained numerous times how I believe that the government should take care of its people and that it's a shame that anything government comes with an untrustworthy connotation.

Anyways, any government intervention that limits the powers of private industries for the good of the people sounds an awful lot like socialism to me...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I will say it again... dogging capitalism can never be a sufficient method alone for arguing for communism or socialism, but that is all communists and socialists really ever do in these debates.

Have you been reading my posts .

Also, I will always support taking down fascism, which is something every communist government in the history of the world has engaged in on a major level.

I'd reconsider your use of the word "fascism". Look it up, it's on the far right of the "political spectrum", whereas communism is on the far left.

Spartiate, class division is not fucked up. It is the natural way of things in a free society. There are skill divisions on a sports team. There are grade level divisions in a classroom. There are talent level divisions in a music or film industry. It is how things work, and trying to force it not to is disastrous. Some of those countries you listed, like South Africa, are very new to democracy. The changes do not happen over night.

I'd like to see you say that if you lived in the Bronx, or a favela in Brazil, or a shanty town in Nigeria, etc. I also agree that capitalism creates faster growth than socialism/communism, but the problem is that the wealth doesn't trickle down to the people.

Capitalists don't realize that by having a large lower class population in your country, the higher classes suffer.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The reason people talk about communism as a form of government is that communism always involves fascism.

Originally Posted by spockman

I guess what I'm saying has mostly been stated if my main point is that communism will put a minority in a position of absolute control, (only a fool would trust said minority to indefinitely rule peaceably and morally.)

This guy said it best.

Originally Posted by imran_p

The idea that communism is anti democratic is really prevalent in the West. It helps explain not only why we wouldn't desire communism in place of the current system and why we have so aggressively opposed it internationally.

Communism, by definition, gives power to the people.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

You never explained what wealth. You just kept saying business creates wealth, business creates wealth, and business creates wealth.

If it is anything it must be an imaginary concept, because like I said before if capitalism disappeared all the natural wealth would still be here. So what wealth?

You didn't read what I said about the self-perpetuating system? Businesses are created and expanded when people buy things. Right? To buy things, people have to have money. They get it from people buying things. That is how wealth is generated. If you take away people's incentive to build businesses, why would the businesses be built and expanded, thereby creating jobs and therefore more spending? Can you explain that? It is the million dollar question.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Have you been reading my posts .

No. Could you quote some important highlights?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'd reconsider your use of the word "fascism". Look it up, it's on the far right of the "political spectrum", whereas communism is on the far left.

There is plenty of left wing fascism. A dictatorship in which the government is placed way above the people, verbal opposition to the government is forbidden and harshly stifled, and heavy use of propaganda is used is a fascist state. They just don't always use that term like Mussolini did.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'd like to see you say that if you lived in the Bronx, or a favela in Brazil, or a shanty town in Nigeria, etc.

What, I might get beaten up for saying it? What the Hell does that prove? Every city in truly capitalistic countries, which Brazil is not (I don't know about Nigeria, but I know it was under oppressive European rule until late in the last century.), has opportunities for those who try. That is why so many people have risen from rags to riches. My family did it, for example.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I also agree that capitalism creates faster growth than socialism/communism, but the problem is that the wealth doesn't trickle down to the people.

Yes it does. That is why our "poor" people are relatively so well off. They are rich by the standards of most countries.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Capitalists don't realize that by having a large lower class population in your country, the higher classes suffer.

They are only considered lower class because others are considered higher class. Socialism would lower the higher classes... and the lower classes.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Communism, by definition, gives power to the people.

It's just a fantasy with major holes in it. It has never worked. Ever.

Now please answer some of my questions/issues that have been getting ignored in this thread...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I know of a model you can use. Imagine a really big house with ten adults living in it. Three of the people living in the house are lazy ass bums who work as little as possible and mooch off people whenever given the opportunity. Two of the people in the house are hard workers because they want to have the money it takes to live in the house and to have extra spending money and also savings every month. The other roommates do a little bit above getting by for themselves.

What we want to do is figure out how to make the household communist and still function effectively and fairly. Instead of each person paying his part of the rent, he/she just puts money in the rent and bill money box (Let's assume for now that nobody in the house has the power to steal money out of it.). Nobody is required on an individual level to put any certain amount of money in the box each month. However, if the bills don't get paid, the utilities get shut off. If the rent doesn't get paid, they get kicked out of the house. So, if anybody puts absolutely nothing into the box, the others have to compensate for what wasn't put in.

What will happen? How can we adjust the system to make it work effectively... and fairly?

and...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

http://dreamviews.com/community/show...ibution+grades

Why would people create and expand big businesses and thereby create zillions of jobs in a socialist or communist system? Why would people work hard 40+ hours a week in a socialist or communist system? We know the power of greed. What can realistically take its place? Whatever you say it is, why is it not present in a capitalist system also?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I have already explained in previous posts why I wouldn't label them communist

I'm sorry Spart, but if the world recognizes those countries as communist, who am I most likely to side with? You can give me a little snippet of what you said all the same, or link the post in which you gave your description. I will still read it. I just don't think that any one person can redefine a term like that to suit their own purposes.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

By contrast, the socialist countries of Europe are doing quite well for themselves, not quite communism but it shows that capitalism isn't the only answer.

I never claimed it was the only answer, but Europe is nevertheless dominantly capitalist.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I got that from: "The large pieces of land that are bought in third world countries to grow luxury crops for export essentially starve the local people, but it's due solely to the fact that there are no regulations in place to help the people on the lower end of the social ladder; because money means more to those in higher positions than the well being of the people they allegedly govern."

Note that capitalist policies entail a lack of government regulation, it lets its corporations run rampant (huge growth at a social price).

I did not bash globalization there, as you had claimed.

The part in bold is significant because it reinforces what I think ought to change (at least to some degree) in order for things to work more effectively for everyone. Again, I had not claimed that pure capitalist dogma was the end-all to the world's problems. People can still be harmed through the reckless greed of others.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Please don't barge into the middle of a conversation with a bunch of assumptions.

Nothing more than observations, and then an opinion. Thanks for the warm welcome.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

If you'd have read my previous posts, you'd have seen that I've explained numerous times how I believe that the government should take care of its people and that it's a shame that anything government comes with an untrustworthy connotation.

Then why on Earth would you make it out to be such a negative thing in your response to my previous post, if you agreed?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Anyways, any government intervention that limits the powers of private industries for the good of the people sounds an awful lot like socialism to me...

Pure socialism does not include privatized business.
Pure capitalism does not include regulation. That is why, in my original post in the thread, I said that the system needed to be used responsibly. Being that it is a quality that's lacking on the larger scale of things, I introduced the proposition on regulations in place of trusting people to be responsible.


Communism doesn't work as effectively because people do not have the freedom to run their own enterprise at all.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No. Could you quote some important highlights?

Well, I gave some examples of innovation outside of capitalism (Antiquity, the Renaissance, government corporations such Hydro-Québec). I also fought off the notion that communism is anti-democratic, and pointed out how past "communist" countries were victims of huge political instability (using the USSR as an example). I argued how a communist nation would have a more educated populace and less crime. I mentioned that we are all slaves to our employers to sustain ourselves, and that it is better to work for the state which exists for the good of the people rather than a corporation which exists to exploit them. I said that capitalist governments look after their industry-driving corporations instead of their people, and that social services in such a government are typically of the lowest quality. I also posited that greed is unnecessary and can be unlearned.

My stance on socialism is that it's an acceptable compromise, so long as the government retains more power than private enterprises (i.e. the state regulates the corporations as opposed to the corporations lobbying the state to enact laws that are ultimately detrimental to the people). I also believe that essential services, such as education and healthcare, should be provided solely by the state. For the the record, I live in a socialist democracy.

My stance on communism is that it is the fairest system which would produce the healthiest society, but that it is a long process to undertake and would require a fundamental shift in western ideology. There are plenty of kinks but surely nothing that can't be ironed out, it doesn't just work on paper.

There is plenty of left wing fascism. A dictatorship in which the government is placed way above the people, verbal opposition to the government is forbidden and harshly stifled, and heavy use of propaganda is used is a fascist state. They just don't always use that term like Mussolini did.

That isn't really accurate, it'd be like saying there are right wing communists.

Originally Posted by Wiki

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system.[5] Scholars generally consider it to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.[6][7][8][9][10][11]

This explains the huge amount of mistrust and eventually hatred that existed between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany around WW2.

Some people advocate that it isn't related to either capitalism or communism.

What, I might get beaten up for saying it? What the Hell does that prove? Every city in truly capitalistic countries, which Brazil is not (I don't know about Nigeria, but I know it was under oppressive European rule until late in the last century.), has opportunities for those who try. That is why so many people have risen from rags to riches. My family did it, for example.

I'm not suggesting you'd get beat up for speaking your mind, I'm suggesting your views on class division might be different if you had to shit in a cardboard box or had trouble feeding your family in a country that boasts a relatively robust economy. How real is the opportunity to "move up" in reality? How often does it happen? How many poor people become millionaires versus how many poor people become homeless? The truth is that the lower classes don't have access to proper education and are largely doomed to low wages for the duration of their lives. I'm glad for you and your family, but I'm sure that there are many more families that can claim they were hindered by a lack of access to education and career opportunities.

Yes it does. That is why our "poor" people are relatively so well off. They are rich by the standards of most countries.

Don't compare the United States with other countries, this doesn't take into account the big picture. The United States was founded by advanced-for-the-time Europeans who basically had carte blanche with a brand new country. They had a huge, unspoiled, isolated country extremely rich in natural resources to build upon. There hasn't been any internal strife or threat of invasion to the US in the last 150 years. Try finding another country with so many favourable factors for a stable, prosperous economy. One wonders how poverty still exists at all in such a country.

Instead, look within your own country. So it is wealthy, how is wealth distributed. The top 1% of the population possesses one third of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% (some 240 million people) possess only 15% of the wealth. Sounds like the poor don't need to be so poor.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

They are only considered lower class because others are considered higher class. Socialism would lower the higher classes... and the lower classes.

And they are also called lower class because their quality of life is lower. I wonder how many criminals in the american penal system are from the lower classes. I wonder how much it costs the taxpayer to support them. See what I mean about how the lower classes are a handicap to society? Now keep in mind that the vast majority of the population is below middle class.

Socialism/communism would lower the higher classes, but I don't see how you gather that it would further lower the poor classes. Using my above example of how wealth is distributed in the United States, say all the wealth was suddenly evenly partitioned between each citizen, would the majority not get an upgrade?

It's just a fantasy with major holes in it. It has never worked. Ever.

Before we get into that, do you not agree that the key principle of COMMUNism is to give power to the masses?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I know of a model you can use. Imagine a really big house with ten adults living in it. Three of the people living in the house are lazy ass bums who work as little as possible and mooch off people whenever given the opportunity. Two of the people in the house are hard workers because they want to have the money it takes to live in the house and to have extra spending money and also savings every month. The other roommates do a little bit above getting by for themselves.

What we want to do is figure out how to make the household communist and still function effectively and fairly. Instead of each person paying his part of the rent, he/she just puts money in the rent and bill money box (Let's assume for now that nobody in the house has the power to steal money out of it.). Nobody is required on an individual level to put any certain amount of money in the box each month. However, if the bills don't get paid, the utilities get shut off. If the rent doesn't get paid, they get kicked out of the house. So, if anybody puts absolutely nothing into the box, the others have to compensate for what wasn't put in.

What will happen? How can we adjust the system to make it work effectively... and fairly?

There's a major flaw with this model, it tries to implement a tiny enclave of communism within a capitalistic system. If the household was communist, nobody would pay rent, the state would supply it in exchange for labour (I assume total unwillingness to hold your end of the bargain and work would come with severe penalties).

Just to play along though, if you tried to "communize" a household in capitalism, I don't see why suddenly there would be no pressure to pay your equal part. I say agree on evenly splitting the rent between all participants. Make it known at the end of the month when you have fulfilled your obligation. Those who don't fulfill their part would be heavily ostracized and if necessary, kicked out.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We all know of the misfortunes of kids who make bad grades in school, which causes them to not get into college, which causes them to have bad economic futures. That leads to drug addiction and starvation. Meanwhile, academic fat cats are making straight A's and getting into Ivy League schools and excellent grad schools. It is not fair. There are plenty of grade points to go around for everybody. So, I have a proposal. Instead of rewarding greed, let's force the greedy to share. Instead of each person being given the grade that he or she actually made in a term, we should take all of the grades in an entire school, get the average of them, and give everybody that grade. That is fair, and it forces equality. We can make the academic fat cats stop hogging all of the good grade points, and we can give the extra grade points to those who are less fortunate.

What do you think the result would be?

I'm not too sure how to respond to this one, I just really don't see how you can compare school grades to money. One is a measure of knowledge, the other of wealth. Wealth can be spread, knowledge can be learned, but not spread... Are you trying to say that it is unfair for students who have not studied appropriately to receive credit from those who have? That someone who isn't productive in communism would be compensated equally to someone who is?

Why would people create and expand big businesses and thereby create zillions of jobs in a socialist or communist system? Why would people work hard 40+ hours a week in a socialist or communist system? We know the power of greed. What can realistically take its place? Whatever you say it is, why is it not present in a capitalist system also?

Governments are actually very good at cutting unemployment and creating jobs when there is a need. That's partially how many countries (including the US) got out of the Great Depression. By contrast, in a recession, it is the private corporations who downsize and cut jobs. Communism does not mean the elimination of supply and demand.

You do realize that the people who work insane work weeks in the USA often receive low pay and do so just to get by or support people under their care. I believe that's referred to as wage slavery. General business axiom is that the more you get paid, the less you do. In any case, your work hours are determined by the state in communism, just like how your work hours are determined by your company in capitalism.

Greed is powerful, but harmful to society. A system where everybody supports each other is healthier than a system where everybody exploits each other. Communism isn't a switch that can be flicked. The transition from capitalism is very long and can't be rushed. It will also have to pass through socialism, which I have mentioned I live in.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I live in the province of Quebec in Canada, probably the most heavily socialized area in North America. It is a thriving example of successful socialism, especially considering our proximity to extremely capitalist neighbors. Throughout our history, we have been culturally isolated from our English surroundings, and the people of Quebec have developed the notion of "Solidarity" to look after each other. Here healthcare is free, college is free and university is heavily subsidized, most city services are ran by the municipal government, television and radio stations are ran by the state, daycares are virtually free, the list goes on and on... One of the most successful examples of Quebec nationalization has been our electricity provider, a highly profitable state corporation responsible for some of the most complex civil engineering projects in North America. Frankly, we have come to expect a lot from our government and we wouldn't have it any other way.

It really isn't so bad.

Originally Posted by Invader

I'm sorry Spart, but if the world recognizes those countries as communist, who am I most likely to side with? You can give me a little snippet of what you said all the same, or link the post in which you gave your description. I will still read it. I just don't think that any one person can redefine a term like that to suit their own purposes.

There's quite a huge difference between what some countries have done in the 20th century and what Marx wrote about a hundred years before. For some frustrating reason, mainstream media has come to identify communism with the practises of these countries instead of the original concept. Of course I'm not advocating for a North Korea style government, or totalitarianism. Some will argue that "original" communism will always degenerate into this, but I do not believe this to be true.

I never claimed it was the only answer, but Europe is nevertheless dominantly capitalist.

OK, but it seems that many western countries that are undoubtedly more socialized than the USA, are faring better.

I did not bash globalization there, as you had claimed.

The part in bold is significant because it reinforces what I think ought to change (at least to some degree) in order for things to work more effectively for everyone. Again, I had not claimed that pure capitalist dogma was the end-all to the world's problems. People can still be harmed through the reckless greed of others.

So long as a government is predominately capitalist, it will put the well being of corporations over that of people. Just look at the recent US law on campaign funding.

Nothing more than observations, and then an opinion. Thanks for the warm welcome.

I'm sorry if I offended you. I just found the "I'm sorry if this is a difficult concept to swallow" part condescending, especially since I have actually been advocating the same thing as you in all my posts.

Then why on Earth would you make it out to be such a negative thing in your response to my previous post, if you agreed?

It wasn't negative, I was simply pointing out how contradictory it was to dismiss communism, but then say the government should implement communist policies. I am in favour of government regulation...

Pure socialism does not include privatized business.
Pure capitalism does not include regulation. That is why, in my original post in the thread, I said that the system needed to be used responsibly. Being that it is a quality that's lacking on the larger scale of things, I introduced the proposition on regulations in place of trusting people to be responsible.


Communism doesn't work as effectively because people do not have the freedom to run their own enterprise at all.

I think you're mixing up socialism and communism. Private enterprises do exist in socialism, but not in communism. Think of socialism as the exact middle between capitalism and communism. All socialism really is is heavy government presence in the economy through regulations and subsidies, and perhaps the presence of several state owned enterprises. What you are advocating for sounds very much like pure socialism.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Before we get into that, do you not agree that the key principle of COMMUNism is to give power to the masses?

Wait, I'm a bit confused. If the government has the power to distribute all resources how they will, how do the people have any power?

To Spart, I've been all the way through British Columbia and it was lovely. People seemed happy/healthy and I don't begrudge Canada socialism.

Originally Posted by spockman

Wait, I'm a bit confused. If the government has the power to distribute all resources how they will, how do the people have any power?

To Spart, I've been all the way through British Columbia and it was lovely. People seemed happy/healthy and I don't begrudge Canada socialism.

The government doesn't distribute resources how they will, they do so in accordance with the needs of the people. If the people claim certain needs, then they are fulfilled by the state, not the other way around. Combine that with democracy and you have the fairest system around. The definition of power is the ability to do something, or the ability to influence the actions of others.

I fear that in capitalism, a buck is worth more than a vote. The wishes of the wealthy are accommodated and the pleas of the needy are largely ignored.


On a side note, I won't have much time for debating as I have some incredibly important work to finish for the weekend. Please be patient and I will respond to further posts at a later time .

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You didn't read what I said about the self-perpetuating system? Businesses are created and expanded when people buy things. Right? To buy things, people have to have money. They get it from people buying things. That is how wealth is generated. If you take away people's incentive to build businesses, why would the businesses be built and expanded, thereby creating jobs and therefore more spending? Can you explain that? It is the million dollar question.

I don't see how wealth was generated. Is wealth a tangible thing in this case? Or just Imaginary value associated with that green paper? What I see is the transfer of wealth; and the greatest transfer of wealth in this world is from the poor to the rich.

I don't recall ever saying that we need to revoke incentive to build business. Change incentive, most definitely. What we don't need is a group of greedy CEO's in charge willing to rape the environment and make billions of dollars at the expense of other humans and future generations.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I know of a model you can use. Imagine a really big house with ten adults living in it. Three of the people living in the house are lazy ass bums who work as little as possible and mooch off people whenever given the opportunity. Two of the people in the house are hard workers because they want to have the money it takes to live in the house and to have extra spending money and also savings every month. The other roommates do a little bit above getting by for themselves.

What we want to do is figure out how to make the household communist and still function effectively and fairly. Instead of each person paying his part of the rent, he/she just puts money in the rent and bill money box (Let's assume for now that nobody in the house has the power to steal money out of it.). Nobody is required on an individual level to put any certain amount of money in the box each month. However, if the bills don't get paid, the utilities get shut off. If the rent doesn't get paid, they get kicked out of the house. So, if anybody puts absolutely nothing into the box, the others have to compensate for what wasn't put in.

What will happen? How can we adjust the system to make it work effectively... and fairly?

That's the Sovjet Union in a nutshell. And it never worked because it was merely Capitalism dressed up as communism. The people were right to call the Sovjet leaders the "Red Tzars"




To make this work you would have to join a group of people, either buy some land together or move out into nature deep enough to never be bothered by landowners and other such scum and near a watersource(Could even be the sea)

If they can procure a reliable drinking water supply & distribution, keep some chickens for eggs and meat, build foodcrop-farms and medicinal plant gardens, build their own houses and devise some sort of sewage system...

Well then that is about all they need to survive and be self-providing.

Using a money system in Communism is backwards and defeats the very purpose of it. That's where the Sovjet Union epicly failed.

It is very difficult to talk about communism on the twenty-first century. We have capitalism, and we are free. That's the real advantage, right? Freedom, the ultimate goal, the immense statue of liberty, emblem of the eager-working immigrants. But hey, after all, nobody likes to work for the government, earning minimum wage and eating the same things as everyone else, dressing the same way, priving vacations, and every other freedom for the sake of our county. Our government. We don't want to be slaves of anyone, lest the govenment.

Yet we have no problem being the "slave" of this society which puts material things, say...money? (and you name it!) before the basic component of society: the citizen, or even more precisely:the person. This system has forgotten it's people and it's sad that they don't even realize it. But they can't realize it, their eyes are to remain shut because it's impossible for them to see beyond that social-construction. Modern man can't grasp his head around the concept of a system whose spirit is based not based on greed, and property.

We have been lied to, the lie of unparalleled progress has been the biggest lie of the modern age. The gap between the few rich nations (where capitalism has worked, can you believe it?) and the poor nations is huge. A theory of infinity on a finite planet is ludicrous.


It is impossible for these people to think of a system in which the person becomes what he wants to become and not what he-thinks-he-needs-to-become in order to have some kind of financial gain. If you really want to be a doctor, or whatever you might want to be to fullfill your potential as a human-being, then you would be happy being a doctor and you would actually study what you want. You wouldn't spend fifteen years studying something you kinda-like-but-it's-really-more-for-the-buck. And we wonder why there is so much suicide and depression in the world...


As I said it is too difficult to speak about communism this day and age. Perhaps, a couple of centuries from now....

Originally Posted by SKA

That's the Sovjet Union in a nutshell. And it never worked because it was merely Capitalism dressed up as communism.

Hah, man I think that statement right there sums up the insanity of the people posting in this thread.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

There's quite a huge difference between what some countries have done in the 20th century and what Marx wrote about a hundred years before. For some frustrating reason, mainstream media has come to identify communism with the practises of these countries instead of the original concept. Of course I'm not advocating for a North Korea style government, or totalitarianism. Some will argue that "original" communism will always degenerate into this, but I do not believe this to be true.

"Original" communism is leaving the government with total control over the economy and the wages every individual makes, correct? This is a situation that would also need to be run by the most absolute responsible of characters in order to prevent it from degenerating into hungry-for-power government we've seen rise again and again. Politicians succumb to money easily enough as it is, and to give them rights to all means of production and distribution, well, seems a little backwards.

That's what I assumed was going on today in modern communist countries.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

OK, but it seems that many western countries that are undoubtedly more socialized than the USA, are faring better.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

So long as a government is predominately capitalist, it will put the well being of corporations over that of people. Just look at the recent US law on campaign funding.

I know, but my point earlier was that likewise a corporation would put their own financial interests before the people as well. These are both problems.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'm sorry if I offended you. I just found the "I'm sorry if this is a difficult concept to swallow" part condescending, especially since I have actually been advocating the same thing as you in all my posts.

It wasn't negative, I was simply pointing out how contradictory it was to dismiss communism, but then say the government should implement communist policies. I am in favour of government regulation...

I had responded with the comment because I was under the impression you were attacking me outright.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I think you're mixing up socialism and communism. Private enterprises do exist in socialism, but not in communism. Think of socialism as the exact middle between capitalism and communism. All socialism really is is heavy government presence in the economy through regulations and subsidies, and perhaps the presence of several state owned enterprises. What you are advocating for sounds very much like pure socialism.

I think we are on the same page.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

As for the rest I feel as if I have already covered in some degree, and that we'd just go around in circles if I readdressed it. It seems like every post we come closer and closer to compromising on a mix of the two systems. I do find this acceptable, and far more practical than attempting communism, but only so long as the state retains more power than private corporations. The blight known as corporate lobbying forces the government to enact laws and policies that look after corporations, not its people. Corporations exist to exploit, period. I also think that essential services, such as education and healthcare should be provided exclusively by the state.

I agree with most of that, except I believe that private enterprises and corporations have their place. I agree with your assessment on the nature of corporations and the futility of lobbying though.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Communism can be simplified to "rule of the masses", either economically or politically. So once again, how were these countries communist, you said so yourself that they didn't give their people any say in the governance. Would you call the Democratic Republic of the Congo or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a democracy?

That doesn't take away from the fact that they were communist economically. Though they do not conform to the ideal at a hundred percent they were clearly communist;although they never were 100% the ideal. But a country doesn't necessarily have to be the perfect model of a system to be a part of that system. There are plenty of nations out there will less than perfect democracies, yet they are still democracies although not perfect by any means. You do make a good point about rule of the masses as being a pillar of the communist ideal though. There is no doubt about that. However, these nations had Communist economic systems although usually based on the interpretations of their proponents (lenin, mao, etc) rather than just the original Marxism.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

It's not so much that the government funds private corporations (although imagine how all those billions of dollars of bailout money lately could have been redirected), it's more that it neglects its own services. A capitalist government feels that it shouldn't provide any services to the population, therefore it taxes very little and minimizes expenditures. Therefore government services are often of the lowest quality. In a communist system, the state would be forced to fund its services appropriately, being the sole provider. This eliminates the different "tiers" of services in society which are the root of capitalism's problems and replaces them with a single, high quality service.

I agree to an extent here once again. However, I think in the past we have seen this happen in various countries with mixed success. I think we can agree on the need to have Universal healthcare in a country. Though I think that a private option should be afforded to those who want one. Especially if the system has shortcomings in certain places which it does. Even here in Canada, as good as the system is, and it is good, there are certain limitations.
Especially, in the realm of waiting times and bureaucracy. However, I do believe that it can and does meet the needs of 90% of the people. There are just the odd cases where someone needs to go through a private clinic rather than a public one. And that is why I believe that they have their place.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Hah, man I think that statement right there sums up the insanity of the people posting in this thread.

Care to explain why?

The Sovjet Union was never even REMOTELY communist. When the Sovjet political party took over control from the Sovjets(councils) they ran the country exactly like Capitalists would. They may have controlled the distribution of money and goods alot more extremely, but they only did so to take away the wealth of the people and add it to their own. That's Aristocracy.

How is that truely, at the core, any different from Capitalism?

Originally Posted by SKA

Care to explain why?

The Sovjet Union was never even REMOTELY communist. When the Sovjet political party took over control from the Sovjets(councils) they ran the country exactly like Capitalists would.

And that would be...?

They may have controlled the distribution of money and goods alot more extremely, but they only did so to take away the wealth of the people and add it to their own. That's Aristocracy.

So you just defeated your own argument by stating the government "controlled the distribution of money and goods a lot more extremely, and did so only to take away the wealth of the people" (not Capitalism), then calling it "aristocracy" (also not Capitalism)

Aristocracy
1 : government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class
2 a : a government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified b : a state with such a government
3 : a governing body or upper class usually made up of a hereditary nobility
4 : the aggregate of those believed to be superior

How is that truely, at the core, any different from Capitalism?

Capitalism
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

What the hell are you babbling on about?

The distinctions between different political and economic systems are quite blurred. given the lack of accurate historical information regarding the USSR its easy to come to a number of different conclusions. I find Trotsky's analysis of the Soviet Union as a degenerate worker's state to be the most helpful. There are also those who point to the USSR as being state capitalist. Although owners were removed from big business they were replaced by a bureaucratic caste and the wealth was never re distributed, thus not communism in the slightest.

I don't know if you've noticed but Aristocracy is a product of Capitalism.
Capitalism benefits the few. The Elite. The middle class majority keeps working towards the top, but never quite get there.
Off course not. The wealthy elite aren't keen on sharing a piece of their huge pie.

There can only be a very small number of multi billionaires; If they allowed all middle class hardworking people into their elite, they would have to share their wealth and they wouldn't be "elite" anymore. And then who is going to work for them?

Originally Posted by SKA

I don't know if you've noticed but Aristocracy is a product of Capitalism.
Capitalism benefits the few. The Elite. The middle class majority keeps working towards the top, but never quite get there.
Off course not. The wealthy elite aren't keen on sharing a piece of their huge pie.

There can only be a very small number of multi billionaires; If they allowed all middle class hardworking people into their elite, they would have to share their wealth and they wouldn't be "elite" anymore. And then who is going to work for them?

How can one become a multi-billionaire through a regular, middle-class job? This isn't about spreading the wealth around, sharing pieces of money-pies, or being "elite." The rich, at least the honest ones that weren't seduced by the government simply to get ahead through special interests and such, get ahead by being entrepreneurs; running efficient, consumer-based businesses that people like.

It's nonsensical to say that Capitalism only benefits the few. Under the virtues of Capitalism within the last two centuries we've seen an explosion in wages and a dramatic increase in the standard of living, and not just for these so-called "elite." Not everyone can be a billionaire, just as not everyone can be a king (or some other hard-to-reach position).

It would be ridiculous for the rich to simply start giving away their money. First of all, they have no obligation to. If they were forced to, either through welfare taxation or simple "wealth spreading," that would be completely immoral and, if the taxes were high enough (just as they are now), you would see the downfall of business and eventually the downfall of the economy.

You act like workers are these poor, downtrodden, exploited pigs that have no say in their position in life; like they're being oppressed by this magical force they can't defend against. But the thing is, they made a voluntary contract with those rich "elite" to work for them in order to get compensation for their services.. They weren't forced out of their homes, they weren't blackmailed or bought like a slave.

SKA, I like your passion, but it is so very misplaced. Put that passion into reading an economics book or something. Economics in One Lession or An Introduction to Economic Reasoning are excellent places to start.

Or at least learn the difference between capitalism (laissez-faire) and state-capitalism/corporatism.

Why do you say forcing the extremely wealthy to spread wealth is immoral?
That sounds very backwards to me.

As I see it it is immoral of the extremely rich to keep so much wealth for themselves while the masses of the country's people can't even afford healthcare even if it is a matter of life and death?

Why would one person need to own 3 houses and the other be homeless and have to struggle to even obtain 1 house? Do you not think every human being deserves housing, food, healthcare unconditionally? I really do namely.

I don't see anything wrong with forcing the extremely rich to share their wealth with taxes. I see it as helping them be more social. I see it as teaching them to share.

Off course if they refuse to do that, there is allways the less civilised method; Revolution. Which sooner or later will happen just as it happened in Russia, in France and in China.

Originally Posted by SKA

Why do you say forcing the extremely wealthy to spread wealth is immoral?
That sounds very backwards to me.

Because it involves the initiation and the use of force, which is never moral (except in self-defense, but that doesn't apply to this situation). The policies needed to "spread the wealth" would imply taxation, which, on its face is theft. You don't seem like a violent person, but you must realize you are advocating violence by saying "I won't steal from them, but someone else should."

As I see it it is immoral of the extremely rich to keep so much wealth for themselves while the masses of the country's people can't even afford healthcare even if it is a matter of life and death?

Is that the fault of the rich or the fault of bureaucrats creating policies that keep people in poverty or trying to obtain a monopoly on healthcare services?

Why would one person need to own 3 houses and the other be homeless and have to struggle to even obtain 1 house? Do you not think every human being deserves housing, food, healthcare unconditionally? I really do namely.

I do also, but I'm not a fan of "the ends justify the means," in that stealing from Joe to give to Bill is justified. The best way for everyone to obtain housing, food, healthcare, etc, is through business competition (lowered prices, none of these silly government-approved monopolies, increased and abundant products/services and consumption) and voluntary exchange.

I don't see anything wrong with forcing the extremely rich to share their wealth with taxes. I see it as helping them be more social. I see it as teaching them to share.

Voluntary sharing is great. Involuntarily, or forced altruism, is not, for reasons explained earlier.

Off course if they refuse to do that, there is allways the less civilised method; Revolution. Which sooner or later will happen just as it happened in Russia, in France and in China.

Which kind of revolution? Intellectual or violent/physical? Both wouldn't really work in this case because they both invite the initiation of force, either through heavily taxing the rich or openly raiding their homes, destroying private property on the way.

Business competition is a dirty game. We shouldn't be competing we should be Cooperating. Instead we are forced to struggle and fight eachother on our way to the top we'll never reach.

I resent violence and have never ever started a fight in my life. Never even had one either.
So I am an ultimately non-violent person. Not your average alpha male no.

That is not to say I cannnot under certain circumstances become extremely violent; I can and I certainly will to protect my freedom and my safety.

Why do yhou think we're in a worldwide crisis now? Again? Community money meant for education, elderly care/retirement and health care has been massively stolen from us by fraudulent bankers and businessmen.

It didnt just evaporise. And now we are forced to work harder and longer to compensate for it. You've no idea how many young homeless people walk the streets of my city. They can no longer keep up the struggle for merely being able to pay for a roof over their heads and some food in their stomachs.

The housing market is only concerned with high profits; so high that more and more can no longer afford it. You say it's simply all their fault? Should they just work harder?

I'm on wellfare. Involuntairily, because I have a problem following along in todays rapid paced, stressy education system. I'd much rather see the education system be made more accessable for different people like myself, but instead they keep rejecting people that have trouble keeping up, label them insane in one way or another and place them on welfare.

Welfare only costs our society alot more and it isn't even remotely an acceptable solution. We shouldn't pay people that are rejected by the system. We should instead make sure that these people are given a reasonable chance of being able to be part of it instead. I'm cornered. Out of options. Like many many others in this system. And cornered people do desparate things. At times violent things.

I'm pretty sure if one day they furtherly degrade our social laws and take away welfare they would have a large crowd of VERY violent people with nothing to lose ready to start a civil war against them. I will be amongst them.



PS: It is really hypocritical to say you oppose force to share the wealth of the richest, while you do defend the force that is used to push the lower and middle class masses into enslaving them selves. If you leave money/wages out of the question you would see that they were forced to work and their ability to house and feed themselves and their loved ones are used as the leverage.
It's totally immoral and cruel to denie any human being housing or food for any reason whatsoever.

Originally Posted by SKA

Business competition is a dirty game. We shouldn't be competing we should be Cooperating. Instead we are forced to struggle and fight eachother on our way to the top we'll never reach.

And yet, through competition, our technological achievements and standard of living has skyrocketed (putting aside the market-hampering government policies that have slowed down progress).

I resent violence and have never ever started a fight in my life. Never even had one either.
So I am an ultimately non-violent person. Not your average alpha male no.

Yet you would rather have policies in place to steal (a violent act in itself) from Person A to give to Person B.

That is not to say I cannnot under certain circumstances become extremely violent; I can and I certainly will to protect my freedom and my safety.

As would most.

Why do yhou think we're in a worldwide crisis now? Again? Community money meant for education, elderly care/retirement and health care has been massively stolen from us by fraudulent bankers and businessmen.

We're in a worldwide crises now due to the neo-mercantilist/corporatist nature of our government and big businesses. Not to mention the massive inflationary and easy credit policies of the Federal Reserve, the fiat currency we use, and the terrible stimulus/spending programs that only put off certain destruction for a few years, but make it so much worse.

It didnt just evaporise. And now we are forced to work harder and longer to compensate for it. You've no idea how many young homeless people walk the streets of my city. They can no longer keep up the struggle for merely being able to pay for a roof over their heads and some food in their stomachs.

Same with my city. However, it does not follow to toss out the whole market system, which has been proven to increase the standards of living throughout history (thus making goods/services more affordable and accessible) due to the actions of the government. If anything the government should be tossed out. Central planning only causes destruction, as we have all seen.

The housing market is only concerned with high profits; so high that more and more can no longer afford it. You say it's simply all their fault? Should they just work harder?

No, I did not say that. The housing market bubble was created due to the government's easy-credit policies which made it so nearly everyone could buy a house, even if they couldn't afford it. The banks had to comply and accept high-risk costumers due to those policies.

I'm on wellfare. Involuntairily, because I have a problem following along in todays rapid paced, stressy education system. I'd much rather see the education system be made more accessable for different people like myself, but instead they keep rejecting people that have trouble keeping up, label them insane in one way or another and place them on welfare.

Such is the nature of government controlled/influenced schooling.

Welfare only costs our society alot more and it isn't even remotely an acceptable solution. We shouldn't pay people that are rejected by the system. We should instead make sure that these people are given a reasonable chance of being able to be part of it instead. I'm cornered. Out of options. Like many many others in this system. And cornered people do desparate things. At times violent things.

Such is the nature of government central planning.

I'm pretty sure if one day they furtherly degrade our social laws and take away welfare they would have a large crowd of VERY violent people with nothing to lose ready to start a civil war against them. I will be amongst them.

Good for you, just don't dare put in place some crazy communist government and destroy property along the way .

PS: It is really hypocritical to say you oppose force to share the wealth of the richest, while you do defend the force that is used to push the lower and middle class masses into enslaving them selves. If you leave money/wages out of the question you would see that they were forced to work and their ability to house and feed themselves and their loved ones are used as the leverage.
It's totally immoral and cruel to denie any human being housing or food for any reason whatsoever.

Well first of all I don't defend this so-called force that puts the lower/middle classes into slavery. For one, that sounds like Marxist drivel, and two, if I did defend that "force," I would be defending the government which would just be silly.

Further, why would I be the one providing "Bob" with food or housing? He is a capable human being, is he not? Why can't be provide himself with food or housing? (Rhetorical question - it ignores the reasons why. What I'm getting at is that I have no obligation or responsibility to take care of anyone. I certainly should not have my money involuntarily taken from me).

I can't get past how much of your argument is filled with illogical appeals to emotion.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

You never explained what wealth. You just kept saying business creates wealth, business creates wealth, and business creates wealth.

If it is anything it must be an imaginary concept, because like I said before if capitalism disappeared all the natural wealth would still be here. So what wealth?

I explained it on the previous page. Businesses create jobs, and the jobs people do are worth something, so they get money to represent what they did. The system perpetuates itself, as I explained. What is your theory on what creates wealth?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Well, I gave some examples of innovation outside of capitalism (Antiquity, the Renaissance, government corporations such Hydro-Québec). I also fought off the notion that communism is anti-democratic, and pointed out how past "communist" countries were victims of huge political instability (using the USSR as an example). I argued how a communist nation would have a more educated populace and less crime. I mentioned that we are all slaves to our employers to sustain ourselves, and that it is better to work for the state which exists for the good of the people rather than a corporation which exists to exploit them. I said that capitalist governments look after their industry-driving corporations instead of their people, and that social services in such a government are typically of the lowest quality. I also posited that greed is unnecessary and can be unlearned.

Innovation can happen outside of capitalism, but not mass innovation that translates into major job creation and economy boosts. Only money obsessed workaholics create that. The U.S. has a socialist public education program, and that's why most U.S. schools aren't that great. Our private school system, on the other hand, is excellent in most cases. Why might that be? I know that communism and democracy are not opposites, but they never exist together. The masses don't want it. It takes a tyrant totalitarian to make communism do jack shit, and even that is nowhere near enough.

Greed cannot be unlearned. You want to win this debate, right? Try to talk yourself into deliberately letting me win it. Let me know how it goes.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

My stance on socialism is that it's an acceptable compromise, so long as the government retains more power than private enterprises (i.e. the state regulates the corporations as opposed to the corporations lobbying the state to enact laws that are ultimately detrimental to the people). I also believe that essential services, such as education and healthcare, should be provided solely by the state. For the the record, I live in a socialist democracy.

You have a mixed economy, like we do. Yours is just much closer to pure socialism than ours. Like I said about education, the private system always works better than the public system in a country. That is because greed makes things happen very effectively. The same principle applies to healthcare and everything else. We have a government run electicity "company" called Entergy in the southeastern United States. Dealing with them is very different from dealing with a truly private company. A for real private company actually cares about customer complaints and showing up for appointments. Socialism doesn't work too well. Why would a socialistic company care all that much about being thorough? What's in it for them?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

My stance on communism is that it is the fairest system which would produce the healthiest society, but that it is a long process to undertake and would require a fundamental shift in western ideology. There are plenty of kinks but surely nothing that can't be ironed out, it doesn't just work on paper.

You are counting on an aspect of human nature that isn't very abundant. That is the problem with the idea. My equal distribution of grades scenario illustrates that absence.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

That isn't really accurate, it'd be like saying there are right wing communists.

No, it's not the same thing. Communism is left wing by definition. Fascism is not right wing by definition. It is just commonly right wing. Also, you are talking beside the point. I said that nothing has ever made a communist country function at all whatsoever except a fascist government, and you are splitting hairs with me over the definiton of fascism while not addressing what I am getting at. It takes a tyrannical, totalitarian government to make anything happen under communism. Fear is there in place of greed. Without fear and greed, all you have left is the goodness of people's hearts, which is not something so abundant it can be relied on for a truly effective economy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

fas⋅cism  /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun 1.(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.2.(sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.3.(initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.


Nobody is gung-ho about starting a big ass business and creating zillions of jobs and products without a financial reward. Do you disagree with that? Fear does something, but greed is far better. The goodness of people's hearts doesn't do shit for a big economy. A few doctors, lawyers, and engineers (and practically all artists) might be in love with the work itself and have drive to work hard even without a financial reward, but they are rare exceptions. Most lawyers hate their jobs. I know tons of them, and it is the truth. Doctors are generally tight ass money magnets. Most jobs are not that interesting, and we need fast food workers, store managers, janitors, construction workers, sales representatives, etc. What do you expect to motivate them? Why would anybody ever become a high level business manager if he can make the same amount of money being a lifeguard or just answering a phone? Why would the masses work harder jobs than what's at the lowest levels if the rewards are the same? If you answer nothing else, please answer that. Don't tell me it's because the work is fun. Work a few 40+ hour a week jobs with lots of co-workers and see for yourself that the idea is not realistic. Now imagine business owners and executives having the attitudes most workers have. That is where communism fails.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

This explains the huge amount of mistrust and eventually hatred that existed between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany around WW2.

The mistrust was rooted in the fact that they both wanted to take over the world. They both tried.

The Nazi Party's full name was the German Socialist Workers Party. They were socialists, but not communists. You can split hairs with dictionary definitions, but in actual practice, communism is pure socialism. There was a left wing aspect to the Nazi philosophy.

Hitler was a socialist vegetarian art student. Think about that one.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'm not suggesting you'd get beat up for speaking your mind, I'm suggesting your views on class division might be different if you had to shit in a cardboard box or had trouble feeding your family in a country that boasts a relatively robust economy. How real is the opportunity to "move up" in reality? How often does it happen? How many poor people become millionaires versus how many poor people become homeless? The truth is that the lower classes don't have access to proper education and are largely doomed to low wages for the duration of their lives. I'm glad for you and your family, but I'm sure that there are many more families that can claim they were hindered by a lack of access to education and career opportunities.

The opportunity to move up is very real in my country, but it is impossible in a communist country. That is because there is no up. So why try? Because Stalin or Mao might barbeque your ass, and that's it. That only results in people getting by just enough to stay safe. It doesn't produce mass innovation and excitement for progress. Do you know what I mean?

The truth is that most poor Americans don't really try to do much in the business world. They also seem in too many cases to have a problem with having kids they can't afford. Lack of responsibility and discipline are big problems with the poor in a large percentage of cases. The truly dedicated ones who are not retarded do make it. I have seen it happen many times.

Our public education system is socialistic. There is no school choice within the public system, and the people running the schools don't make profits. If the schools were privatized, learning would go way up because the teachers and everybody else would have tougher work standards and have to actually make sure the students learn. As it is now, why try? That's the problem. Again, our private school system is different. I went to several of both public and private American schools. The difference is enormous.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Don't compare the United States with other countries, this doesn't take into account the big picture. The United States was founded by advanced-for-the-time Europeans who basically had carte blanche with a brand new country. They had a huge, unspoiled, isolated country extremely rich in natural resources to build upon. There hasn't been any internal strife or threat of invasion to the US in the last 150 years. Try finding another country with so many favourable factors for a stable, prosperous economy. One wonders how poverty still exists at all in such a country.

We are living in an age of quick transportation and high tech industry. Businesses no longer depend on domestic natural resources. Japan is the second richest nation in the world now (because we rewrote their constitution after World War II), and Japan is a fucking island the size of Montana.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Instead, look within your own country. So it is wealthy, how is wealth distributed. The top 1% of the population possesses one third of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% (some 240 million people) possess only 15% of the wealth. Sounds like the poor don't need to be so poor.

Yes, that is the natural state of business. If you take away the money and the incentive that those at the top have, jobs get lost by the zillions and the public stops spending money. It's a disaster. Don't forget that the rich people you are complaining about are the job creators, and their madness is what drives an economy. Let's not fuck them up.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

And they are also called lower class because their quality of life is lower. I wonder how many criminals in the american penal system are from the lower classes. I wonder how much it costs the taxpayer to support them. See what I mean about how the lower classes are a handicap to society? Now keep in mind that the vast majority of the population is below middle class.

Yes, that is how it works, but your suggestion of what we should do about it is a recipe for destruction. There is always a bell curve when it comes to success. That is how it works in all animal populations. Hindering it is unnatural and catastrophic.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Socialism/communism would lower the higher classes, but I don't see how you gather that it would further lower the poor classes. Using my above example of how wealth is distributed in the United States, say all the wealth was suddenly evenly partitioned between each citizen, would the majority not get an upgrade?

It makes the greedy assholes stop trying, and that results in business stagnation, which greatly harms the entire nation. If you suddenly evenly distributed all of the money in the U.S., there would be a huge wave of job resignation from top to bottom, and that would bring further wealth creation to a halt. That is what would happen in reality.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Before we get into that, do you not agree that the key principle of COMMUNism is to give power to the masses?

That is the idea, but it has never worked and never will.

Have you ever studied the reign of Mao Zedong in China? He went all out to create a classless society in China. He engaged the country in two revolutions, the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The idea was to make the country communal and classless. Both revolutions were failures that led to the worst mass murder in history. The push for a communist Utopia of classlessness failed, then people got killed, then it failed again, and even more people got killed. After that insane nightmare, China still didn't have a classless society. In fact, they were way behind where they had been before Mao came to power. Communism is not a realistic concept. To anybody who says communism has never really been tried, yes it has. That is the quintessential example of the attempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

Originally Posted by Spartiate

There's a major flaw with this model, it tries to implement a tiny enclave of communism within a capitalistic system. If the household was communist, nobody would pay rent, the state would supply it in exchange for labour (I assume total unwillingness to hold your end of the bargain and work would come with severe penalties).

What kind of system exists outside of the house is irrelevant. If it helps you, pretend the house is in communist China and Mao is the landlord. You can also pretend that the people pay rent with labor. Do whatever you have to do to understand the point of the analogy. People wouldn't do shit, and that is the point. That is how it happened under Mao, and production greatly decreased under him. That is a historical truth. In fact, there was mass starvation. Communism a recipe for failure, and both logic and history prove that.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Just to play along though, if you tried to "communize" a household in capitalism, I don't see why suddenly there would be no pressure to pay your equal part. I say agree on evenly splitting the rent between all participants. Make it known at the end of the month when you have fulfilled your obligation. Those who don't fulfill their part would be heavily ostracized and if necessary, kicked out.

Think of the ten most unmotivated people you have ever met and imagine them working hard to pay rent just because of pressure. If the house is everybody's, which is the idea in communism, nobody is going to be worried about getting kicked out. Count on a lot of couch potatoes living in that house. Kicking them out for not doing their part would be capitalistic, unless you kill them like communist dictators always do.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'm not too sure how to respond to this one, I just really don't see how you can compare school grades to money. One is a measure of knowledge, the other of wealth. Wealth can be spread, knowledge can be learned, but not spread...

Knowledge cannot be spread, but grades can. Do you think grades should be evenly distributed? What would be the result of such a system? Would it increase or decrease learning on the individual and group levels? It would decrease it, just like Mao's programs tragically decreased work output.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Governments are actually very good at cutting unemployment and creating jobs when there is a need. That's partially how many countries (including the US) got out of the Great Depression. By contrast, in a recession, it is the private corporations who downsize and cut jobs. Communism does not mean the elimination of supply and demand.

The New Deal was implemented in the mid-30's, but the Great Depression did not end until the 1940's, when World War II just happened to be creating an Earth shattering boom in the weapons industry.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

You do realize that the people who work insane work weeks in the USA often receive low pay and do so just to get by or support people under their care. I believe that's referred to as wage slavery. General business axiom is that the more you get paid, the less you do. In any case, your work hours are determined by the state in communism, just like how your work hours are determined by your company in capitalism.

Greed is powerful, but harmful to society. A system where everybody supports each other is healthier than a system where everybody exploits each other. Communism isn't a switch that can be flicked. The transition from capitalism is very long and can't be rushed. It will also have to pass through socialism, which I have mentioned I live in.

I still don't see what would bring about the same level of effort and innovation that exists in capitalistic countries, I don't know of a single example of where your idea has ever worked in reality, and I do know of examples of where it was a miserable failure.

Yes, some people just get by with minimum wage, but at least they have the opportunity to climb. Those who try hard enough to climb do climb. I can name lots of examples of it, but you can't name one example of where communism has ever worked. Right?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

It really isn't so bad.

Canada still has a major degree of free enterprise. Also, didn't you say the United States owns Canada?

Communism is fundamentally flawed because it groups humans as a false form of collective enterprise. People vary in altruism and co-operative capacity. There is only one way to rationally observe human nature, and that is from the perspective of evolutionary psychology.

This is not to say that human nature is fundamentally bad; that conservative argument is equally fallicious.