Anarchy to me is the only thing that seems to make any sense at all. True anarchy, not that crap the discovery channel trys to put in your head.
Two cows and a communist... (good read)
- Thread starter NTKB
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
// ES :
That won't happen for the same reason communism will fail :
those in power will see to it by conspiracy and/or abuse of their current power such plans will fail.
Those in power have too much to lose,
those without power won't change anything as they gain power because they become "corrupt" themselves in the process.
ie : any revolution no matter how well planned & how good it's intentions will end with things essentially staying the same for those without power.
That won't happen for the same reason communism will fail :
those in power will see to it by conspiracy and/or abuse of their current power such plans will fail.
Those in power have too much to lose,
those without power won't change anything as they gain power because they become "corrupt" themselves in the process.
ie : any revolution no matter how well planned & how good it's intentions will end with things essentially staying the same for those without power.
Originally posted by jaunty
For someone who goes to a private school, you're pretty f<u></u>uckin' stupid
A communist country didn't exist at any time during the 20th century. The USSR is and was capitalist.
I think you misunderstood. What I mean't by "take" was "exploit the s<u></u>hit out of people who couldn't afford university or college.
The point is, capitalism rewards the wrong end of the scale. Are you telling me the rich guy in the suit who makes his living off the guys in the factory honestly deserves to earn about 100x what the guys in the factory do? And is it fair that the company they work for pays 5% tax, while the guys in the factory pay 40-50%?
Communism isn't about a utopia. Make no mistake, it is by definition, anarchy, a society without government. Communism is about giving people what they deserve in exchange for their labor.
Capitalism rewards people for how much they can exploit others. Any moron can see that that is damn wrong.
I said BASED, not a full-blooded Communist country. I meant following some Communist principles.
Btw, nice level of maturity in this debate
Jaunty- I don't tend to bother myself with politics nor debates of political systems in general since they usually end up with leaving everyone bitter and no-one is wiser for the lesson.
Right, back on thread. "Communism is about giving people what they deserve in exchange for their labor."
Here's the trouble- in theory nice idea, in RL it's not going to work.
But if one guy works hard for 10 hours and one guy doesn't don't pay the slacker! some people have said to me. Fine.
What if one person works 8 hours in a factory making clothes for us. Essential- yes. Another works 6 hours in another factory creating new medicines which save lives.
Who did you pay more? Bear in mind this is in a true Communist state where you REWARD people for what they deserve according to their work levels.
One guy worked less hours but made technology that could save lives. If you pay him more then the clothes guy will become angry that his work is considered to be of less importance.
Now we have imbalance. No matter whom you pay more there's still dissatisfaction. If you pay them both the same wages....even so, not everyone would be pleased.
How would you define which person does the more important labour in a Communist state?
My earlier post meant that no-matter if everyone is rewarded fairly for their work, not everyone will be satifised with it and thus there'san inbalance, which could lead to disruptions etc.
*kching* (sound of nail hit on the head )
In a capitalist system the search for profit makes sure a "reasonable" price has to be set or else you're not paid enough (and thus taken advantage of) or you're paid too much (and you can't survive). The system sort of balances itself (the 'poor' & uneducated masses are left for dead, but the others survive ...).
How would you achieve the same thing in a Communist-state ?
// note :
never ever mention 'Communisme' if you want to post a joke ...
as this thread proves it only servers to attract RL & it's turned into another 'communisme is good'-thread
)In a capitalist system the search for profit makes sure a "reasonable" price has to be set or else you're not paid enough (and thus taken advantage of) or you're paid too much (and you can't survive). The system sort of balances itself (the 'poor' & uneducated masses are left for dead, but the others survive ...).
How would you achieve the same thing in a Communist-state ?
// note :
never ever mention 'Communisme' if you want to post a joke ...
as this thread proves it only servers to attract RL & it's turned into another 'communisme is good'-thread
You just said that that "nice idea" was capitalism. Notice how the moment I tell you it is socialism, it suddenly only works in theory. That is a good sign of a bourgeois education. You seem to be trained to think that socialism only works in theory (despite it having proven to work in practice), and thus, anything that is socialism will not work, even if that definition (in your mind) changes.
I suppose you believe that the medicine researcher should work naked then. No? If not, then what you must concede is that the clothes manufacturer is in fact contributing to the development of medicine, because the medicine maker cannot live if he does not have warmth. In capitalism, all manufacturing and research has already been socialized. It is totally dependent on the rest of society to exist. All of society contributes to all spheres of production simply by maintaining their own.
The clothes guy made clothes that would save lives. And by the way, your analogy has already been addressed by Marx in Capital. The early critics of Marxian Socialism said that a worker could work very little, but for 12 hours, whereas someone else could work hard for 8, and the former would get payed more. But Marx corrected that currency is nothing more than a concrete form of not the time put into labor, but the power put into labor (work/time). So your analogy is based only on the time spent and not the work put into the job. That is not to say that the medicine researcher does more work in his time. Making clothes is hard work as well, and clothes are essential in many, if not most climates for survival. So the clothes manufacturer is saving lives, too, probably many more than the medicine researcher, and probably puts just as much work into his job as the medicine researcher.
Socialist state. Communism lacks a state. Socialism is the transitional form to communism. A Communist can interchangeably be called a socialist, and someone who wants Marxian socialism can be called a communist because socialism always leads to communism (just as slavery leads to feudalism, feudalism leads to capitalism, and capitalism to socialism). But socialism and communism are not the same, in Marxian terminology.
Edit:
The value of the product sets the price. In capitalism, prices are always above the value of the product. Value in the capitalist system is the cost of labor to make the product, cost of maintanance of the means of production, and cost of resources. Value in socialism will be the above, minus labor costs. But in capitalism price is determined by supply and demand, competition, and call to the offer. The price must be higher than the value for the capitalist to get money. Since the worker is payed under the value of his labor and the price is always above the value of his labor, he can ironically not even afford to buy what he makes. That is why savings and borrowing are so important to capitalism.
Rimmer, the system DOES NOT balance itself, none of the western world has a Laissez Faire economy, all are heavilly controlled by their respective federal banks and government meddling (trough taxes, subsidies and import restrictions). That way even unwanted products are still produced and dumped.
As usual meddling ****ed up what otherwise would have been a great system. As for people being exploited by capitalism... WRONG. They are being exploited by their own lack of action, by simply accepting whatever restrictions the governments puts on free trade and the capitalist system in general they cut themselves in the fingers so to speak.
It's the workers themselves that made the exploitation possible, in the early days smart "entrepeneurs" kept the wages low by simply playing the workers against themselves, "if you don't want to work there are 10 others in your place". The fact that people would still work even when it was pretty clear they would be exploited opened them to exploitation.
Exploitation takes 2 to tango, one that is willing to exploit and one that is willing to be exploited.
PS: rogue you seem to forget that, profit=the wage of the entrepeneur. If people would simply demand proper wages (trough a body of equal power to the controlling powers, something like a world workers union comes to mind) the problem of exploitation would cease to exist.
However since mankind=greedy and stupid (this is especially true for most of the "have-nots") they will most likely end up fighting eachother over trivialties instead of getting their demands served or their leadership will end up on the company/govt payroll or they are branded as terrorists (PKK comes to mind) causing the rest of the sheep to rally against them.
As usual meddling ****ed up what otherwise would have been a great system. As for people being exploited by capitalism... WRONG. They are being exploited by their own lack of action, by simply accepting whatever restrictions the governments puts on free trade and the capitalist system in general they cut themselves in the fingers so to speak.
It's the workers themselves that made the exploitation possible, in the early days smart "entrepeneurs" kept the wages low by simply playing the workers against themselves, "if you don't want to work there are 10 others in your place". The fact that people would still work even when it was pretty clear they would be exploited opened them to exploitation.
Exploitation takes 2 to tango, one that is willing to exploit and one that is willing to be exploited.
PS: rogue you seem to forget that, profit=the wage of the entrepeneur. If people would simply demand proper wages (trough a body of equal power to the controlling powers, something like a world workers union comes to mind) the problem of exploitation would cease to exist.
However since mankind=greedy and stupid (this is especially true for most of the "have-nots") they will most likely end up fighting eachother over trivialties instead of getting their demands served or their leadership will end up on the company/govt payroll or they are branded as terrorists (PKK comes to mind) causing the rest of the sheep to rally against them.
Last edited:
Well all this talk about politics has me thinking.
Communism in its true form (I dont think it could ever happen given human nature) seems very nice. I work for a Millionaire in real life and he gave me a whopping $125 for christmas.
I always said if I had millions like that I would help ppl but I truely feel that if I did I would let the greed get to me and wouldnt give much (maybe $125!).
And for all you who say I am being selfish because of complaining about the $125 I calculated his income and time and he makes $125 in approximately 15 minutes....
Damn do I feel worthless or what? Oh and that is after 2 years of service...
Anyway I have a few questions to the commys here:
In a communist governemnt who would decide who becomes soldiers in war time? What if that person didnt want to fight?
Who decides how we diplomatically deal with other countrys?
How are any politicians put into office? What keeps them from not seizing power (ala Stalin?)
Communism in its true form (I dont think it could ever happen given human nature) seems very nice. I work for a Millionaire in real life and he gave me a whopping $125 for christmas.
I always said if I had millions like that I would help ppl but I truely feel that if I did I would let the greed get to me and wouldnt give much (maybe $125!).
And for all you who say I am being selfish because of complaining about the $125 I calculated his income and time and he makes $125 in approximately 15 minutes....
Damn do I feel worthless or what? Oh and that is after 2 years of service...
Anyway I have a few questions to the commys here:
In a communist governemnt who would decide who becomes soldiers in war time? What if that person didnt want to fight?
Who decides how we diplomatically deal with other countrys?
How are any politicians put into office? What keeps them from not seizing power (ala Stalin?)
LOL! Go ahead Fur, start a world workers union and see how many seconds pass before the CIA "dissapear" you.
MM:
NTKB, what war? War is something between states and religious groups and/or people with lacking education (over things like appearances etc). Now in a perfect communist world none of these things would exist. Another reason why communism will never work.
NTKB, what war? War is something between states and religious groups and/or people with lacking education (over things like appearances etc). Now in a perfect communist world none of these things would exist. Another reason why communism will never work.
Oh now you want a communist WORLD!? Forget a country! I would love to see you get all those Arabs into a communist system.... SO I guess communism will be a bloody conquest eh?
Also lets say there is a communist country... what war you ask? What if Canada decides to invade the Communist USA. Then what?
The idea that human nature necessitates capitalism is based on no scientific evidence. The strength of socialist theory is it is the first theory of government to be based on modern science. Humans have practically no nature. We adapt to whatever situation we exist in. Capitalism creates greed. Don't fall for the bourgeois redefinition of greed, either. Wanting to live comfortably is not greed. Self interest is not greed. Greed is wanting excess. I don't think it is excessive to want to live a good live.
In communism there are no nation states, so there can be no war. Socialism also eradicates individual nations, so there can be no war. The only time "war" would be necessary is during the course of world revolution, when one nation might want to move into one that has progressed to socialism and put the bourgeois back in power. This happened in the Soviet Union. As soon as the socialists gained power, the U.S. and Britain invaded. Trotsky had to organize an army of volunteers to fight them off (the Red Army was supposed to only be necessary during that period of extreme crisis of the war and counter-revolutionaries, but Stalin turned it into a permanent part of his fascist state). A voluntary army may be necessary in extreme crisis during that time period. Generally I would prefer the model of the Paris Commune. They abolished the military and replaced it with only the National Guard, which was composed of the entire armed population. It was therefore possible for them to act in defense, but not offense, and the army could not be used for oppressive purposes.
There are no other countries. The various communes, in socialism, will elect delegates, who can be democratically recalled at any time, to an assembly in which issues affecting the whole planet are discussed, but there are no individual nation-states.
Officers are elected, and subject to recall at any time. Stalin was only able to take over because Lenin made the USSR capitalist temporarily, in order to create the conditions that allowed it to move into socialism. Capitalism has a state apparatus for oppressing the people, and Stalin was able to use this to create a bureaucratic machine that allowed his conspiracy to take place. Had the USSR been socialist, the state as we know would be destroyed. Things like the army that are used to keep power will be gone. In socialism, the people are the state, so for someone to keep power, he would have to make people oppress themselves. Since most people don't like being oppressed, that would likely not happen.
That'd never happen for 2 reasons.
1) The wealthy hold the power in the USA, thus, communism would never take, becasuse the wealthy wouldn't let it.
2) Canada aren't like the US, and don't need to invade people that use a social system that isn't they one they use.
1) The wealthy hold the power in the USA, thus, communism would never take, becasuse the wealthy wouldn't let it.
2) Canada aren't like the US, and don't need to invade people that use a social system that isn't they one they use.
Can you give me one reason you think Arabs would not want socialism? Perhaps you make allude to their religious conservatism and the lies that socialism forces atheism on people. Engels says in the introduction to The Civil War in France, "in relation to the state religion is a private matter". The Paris Commune's example was to have strict seperation of church and state. All matters that belonged to the realm of the private conscience where not allowed to be touched by the state in any way.
Because Arabs (Muslims I should say) would not allow Infidels in there land... look whats happening now!
So what happens as one country becomes communist... lets say the USA then the rest of the world isnt yet and decides to attack the USA, who decides who fights? Or does the communist country just give up?
So what happens as one country becomes communist... lets say the USA then the rest of the world isnt yet and decides to attack the USA, who decides who fights? Or does the communist country just give up?
ecale3
Sniper - May be harmful to your health.
&
"Sp!ke"
Guest
"So what happens as one country becomes communist... lets say the USA then the rest of the world isnt yet and decides to attack the USA, who decides who fights? Or does the communist country just give up?"
I guess everybody would fight, you know people do crazy things for their freedom, and the Hoplites did it...
I guess everybody would fight, you know people do crazy things for their freedom, and the Hoplites did it...
Exactly. All the people will fight. The purpose of an invasion like that is to reestablish their rule, but if everyone fights back either the people win their freedom, or there will be no one left to rule.
// The_Fur :
Nature balances itself too. And IMHO there is an ideal state for capitalism too.
// --
The baker can't afford his own bread ?
The guy working in a store can't afford to buy stuff he sells ?
ie if that line of reasoning was true, then capitalism couldn't work at all ...
// --
"everyone would fight ?" ... dream on ...
Those convinced they could gain 'power' would help the invaders.
It happened in WW2, it will happen in any war we fight in the future ...
// 'good life' ...
please define that bit ...
'cause having x items of A may be my idea of a 'good life', however given only a limited supply of A someone is going to have less than whatever amount of A he needs to have a 'good' life ...
How would a communist society work that out ?
Take n items of A from me ? But then I wouldn't have enough for a 'good' life ...
// ---------
I think this is closer to the ugly truth :
Nature balances itself too. And IMHO there is an ideal state for capitalism too.
// --
So anyone working in an automobile factory can't afford the car they produce ?
The baker can't afford his own bread ?
The guy working in a store can't afford to buy stuff he sells ?
ie if that line of reasoning was true, then capitalism couldn't work at all ...
// --
"everyone would fight ?" ... dream on ...
Those convinced they could gain 'power' would help the invaders.
It happened in WW2, it will happen in any war we fight in the future ...
// 'good life' ...
please define that bit ...
'cause having x items of A may be my idea of a 'good life', however given only a limited supply of A someone is going to have less than whatever amount of A he needs to have a 'good' life ...
How would a communist society work that out ?
Take n items of A from me ? But then I wouldn't have enough for a 'good' life ...
// ---------
I think this is closer to the ugly truth :
('Feet of clay', Terry Pratchet)
May I say, you have a VERY distorted (typically western) view of muslims. Only the die-hard fanatics consider westerners "infidels". The bulk (90%) of muslims are rather friendly people, and treat most people with at least a courteous respect.
Whats happening now is people being bombed to the s<u></u>hithouse and finally telling you where you can stick your bombs. It's provoked. You can't say thats the way they behave towards all westerners.
No I am not distorted. Not all Americans only watch CNN.
I understand that about muslims and its more like 99% are friendly. The problem is that last %1 is very outspoken and are fanatical enogh to do serious damage to any attempts to get them (look at the strikes on my country) Also dont assume all Americans agree with whats going on. I see these people here with there little flags and signs "God bless America" and the hypocrasy and weakness in some of these drones minds is sickening. I know every country has its batch of mindless political drones ( I lived in Honduras for 2 years so I know).
And since you and the other commys
always have some smart ass remark go ahead.. spit it out