<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Oct 25 2003, 10:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Oct 25 2003, 10:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe this is a foreign concept to you, but when I want to improve my life, I improve myself. Not my property. There are millions of ways to improve your life that don't involve property at all. Learn a new skill, read a book, meet new people, make something you're proud of and give it away, explore some place you've never explored before . . .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoops, you don't own yourself in a communist state. Oh look someone started a war and sent you to die, whoops you're dead, so much for self-improvement without self ownership, what a joke. Note: there is no country in existance that recognizes full ownership of own body, but it is more restricted in socialist states than in others.
Also, how about I make something I'm proud of and keep it? Whoops some dude comes to take it away, looks like a good time to stock up on ammunition.
Revolutionary, thank you for the very good post. People who are imbued with the ideology that humans are "inherently" greedy and lazy and power hungry and evil and prejudiced... tend to take a very pessimistic (and unfortunately 'universal' view of human nature. I don't think people are as naturally terrible as American schoolchildren are taught. While I don't deny that, in the absence of plenty, people will fend for themselves first, the problem is not as bad as so many make it seem.
If, as Menix claims, the initiation of a 'socialist' economy would stop a country dead in its tracks, how did Russia and China both industrialize their countries in about a third of the time it took the western capitalists? How did these countries even continue going after the first day? I'll tell you why; there are forces that can counteract and even surpass the amount of self-interest in every person.
Also: it is seen that people, when driven to sheer necessity, will act totally in self interest to get themselves food and whatever. They even kill each other. But what if you give them what they need? You will see a drastic decrease in their greediness. The problem (reason why socialism will never work in America <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->) is that Americans believe that personal property is a NECESSITY. It isn't one, but because people feel that it is, they act in self-interest regarding it -- much like they would with real needs like food or shelter.
Also: Menix, you take too much of a view that the communist system is like a vacuum. It's not. It is more like a fruit tree. The roots of the fruit tree take resources from the ground that it is dependent on, and then the resources are converted to leaves, bark, and fruit, that eventually fall back to the ground, enriching it. A vacuum takes and never returns. If the government took something from you in taxes, it comes back to you in some way. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilised and organised society. Socialism is basically just a government with 100% income tax. But since you don't have any money to yourself, the government gives you everything you need.
Might I add that there are not going to be any politicians (everyone will be temporarily elected) and it is a bit of a mistake to call it a "State." It is just representative democracy to the extreme.
Ok CommunistWithAGun, what exactly makes Communism "archaic?"
Perhaps you got your idea of American society from TV, and assume that everyone has a nice bourgeois job here, and there's no more class struggle, no more workers or anything (so Communism is obsolute). Please be a little less VAGUE or I'm going to assume that this is what you think. I have no idea what the hell you just said in your most recent post--please extrapolate comrade.
And please leave such slander as "zealotry" out of this. If that is what you are going to call everyone who has a solid viewpoint, a zealot, then perhaps. ...................... u should play starcraft ololo`~L`~``
No seriously. You call me a zealot for having a firm viewpoint and you don't respond to any of my arguments, if you don't have a viewpoint on something I recommend you don't argue about it.
MENIX, normally I'd argue with you but your idea of Communism is countries like North Korea. You should know better; you should know to judge things by their actions and not what they call themselves. For example, the USA says it's capitalist, but you say it is too much of a welfare state and therefore not capitalist -- if I were to attack the USA, you would say that I wasn't attacking capitalism because the USA wasn't capitalist. Whether or not I agree with this, something similar arises when you hate on, say, Cuba, and I am a Communist. Cuba says it's Communist but is not because of its unsocialistic and undemocratic existence.
<!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Oct 25 2003, 06:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Oct 25 2003, 06:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If, as Menix claims, the initiation of a 'socialist' economy would stop a country dead in its tracks, how did Russia and China both industrialize their countries in about a third of the time it took the western capitalists? How did these countries even continue going after the first day? I'll tell you why; there are forces that can counteract and even surpass the amount of self-interest in every person. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Neither USSR nor China had full revokation of private property. The USSR was closer to a dictatorship than anything else and China always had private ownership, the state simply had rigid control of it. What I meant was the full revokation of property ownership which has never happened, even if the ownership wasn't fully recognized by the state.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->MENIX, normally I'd argue with you but your idea of Communism is countries like North Korea.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> False, I have already stated the definition of Communism and it does not include North Korea.
You also seem to ignore that you can not have a workable common pool without property. If I take an apple then I am now in control of the apple, it is impossible for another man to take that apple unless I release it. If no one can control the apple (as is the case with no property) then we will stand over the apple and say over and over: "My apple" "My apple" "My apple" without being able to do anything. There has to be implied ownership for any system to work. Human civilization without some understanding of property is an oxymoron. In order for you to take someting you must first imply that you own it in some way. What then? The first person to call out "I own the whole country" gets all the land? This is just idiotic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You also seem to ignore that you can not have a workable common pool without property. If I take an apple then I am now in control of the apple, it is impossible for another man to take that apple unless I release it. If no one can control the apple (as is the case with no property) then we will stand over the apple and say over and over: "My apple" "My apple" "My apple" without being able to do anything. There has to be implied ownership for any system to work. Human civilization without some understanding of property is an oxymoron. In order for you to take someting you must first imply that you own it in some way. What then? The first person to call out "I own the whole country" gets all the land? This is just idiotic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could have asked for an explanation directly rather than refused to give a legitimate face to Communism by calling it "idiotic" by virtue of that silly misunderstanding that you're waving around this time. If you don't know about something, don't talk ****, I'm happy to explain it to you in a civil manner if you would just adopt one. Don't forget in the 1700's they called you guys "idiotic" and said that democracy would lead to society falling apart.
Property is an old idea--I agree. But the original property in our minds was the idea that the land, the earth, and all its fruits, had been given to humans as a whole. This idea of public property, based on inclusion, has since been eclipsed by private property, which is based on exclusion as you stated.
The apple analogy is far too simplistic and unrepresentative of real human society for me to expand on, so I can only talk about society. Property has not always been a universal idea, it is something like the idea of nationalism or hate crimes, ideas that are attributed absolutism but are new creations.
Anyway what you're asking me to do is tell you how a Communist society would equitably distribute goods. Well I could talk to you about the ideals that represent Communism but I really have to get going and an organizational essay is very tough to write so I can't right now.
come back, i want to read it <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--revolutionary+Oct 26 2003, 03:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (revolutionary @ Oct 26 2003, 03:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You could have asked for an explanation directly rather than refused to give a legitimate face to Communism by calling it "idiotic" by virtue of that silly misunderstanding that you're waving around this time.
...
Anyway what you're asking me to do is tell you how a Communist society would equitably distribute goods. Well I could talk to you about the ideals that represent Communism but I really have to get going and an organizational essay is very tough to write so I can't right now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I called the situation in my example idiotic.
What is equitable distribution of goods? Equitable for whom? For what purpose? Who decides who gets the goods? Who decides who has too much? What is too much? These are the same questions Ayn Rand put against socialism and which socialists only answered by invoking "the good of society". Well screw society, I want to decide how I distribute the fruits of my labor. If you want someone to distribute yours, you're welcome, but don't come to my door and say you want me to give up my goods for "the good of society".
Okay, so here is the whole problem, convincing people that the good of society is better than private property <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I don't understand--wasn't the whole reason that you supported the institution of property because you find it to do the most good for society?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What is equitable distribution of goods? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A state in which everyone is awarded an equal share, by the labor system of value, of the produce of society.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Who decides who gets the goods?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The workers' and farmers' councils, totally democratic Townhall meetings, plan as their constituency directs to produce this or that. Then everyone gets the same share in currency for their 40-hour work week, shorter for youths and the disabled, and they take this to depots within the society, shops, with warehouses that connect them across the globe to account for shortages, and people spend their money as they want.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Who decides who has too much?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I <i>assume</i> that in this and the next question you mean right after the revolution. If the question is brought up at the councils then it's up to the general populace to decide.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What is too much?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the people decide is too much. If you have a gold watch that your grandfather gave you, so what. But if you own a bunch of good farm land that you're letting sit there, while the workers' council is having bad harvests and nowhere to farm, then the people are going to take it.
And there lies another problem. Tyranny from the majority.
Here's a situation for you. I, along with that watch, have inherited a few acres of farmland. However, my father, bless his soul, didn't have a clue how to farm, and planted corn there every year. Planting corn in the same fields every year kills the nutrition content of the soil, and thus, you can't grow anything. So, I start to grow, say... squash, which requires a different set of nutrients to grow. Basic crop rotation.
Now, sooner or later, the townspeople come over and tell me that the land my father gave me, that he worked, sweat, and bled for, is not mine but the societys, so I am supposed to plow it all up, and plant corn again. Not only is this a gross denial of my personal rights, but it is an unwise decision as far as raising crops. But, if I am not to be killed/excommunicated, it is my only option.
Now, I have a field I have already worked to plant and fertilize, in order to better myself, which I cannot work as I see fit anymore, I no longer see the fruit of my labor, because society needs it. The parasitic middle class ****(I really hope that's not a swear word here, it's latin ffs) socialist populus becomes a parasitic mob.
If one farmer wants to work harder then the rest of all the others and plant 60 acres instead of 40, then he should have every right to do that, without being stripped of the result of his work. BY planting those 20 extra acres, he's providing more food for society, bettering the quality of life for others, but he's being rewarded nothing for doing it, and in fact, would be abused by the mob for straying outside the program. The benevolant people of society, who have a strong work ethic, are cast aside because they strive to better themselves. That's no system I'd want to live in.
<!--QuoteBegin--revolutionary+Oct 26 2003, 10:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (revolutionary @ Oct 26 2003, 10:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't understand--wasn't the whole reason that you supported the institution of property because you find it to do the most good for society? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I hold rights of the individual paramount to the rights of any society.
<!--QuoteBegin--Legionnaired+Oct 27 2003, 01:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Oct 27 2003, 01:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And there lies another problem. Tyranny from the majority.
Here's a situation for you. I, along with that watch, have inherited a few acres of farmland. However, my father, bless his soul, didn't have a clue how to farm, and planted corn there every year. Planting corn in the same fields every year kills the nutrition content of the soil, and thus, you can't grow anything. So, I start to grow, say... squash, which requires a different set of nutrients to grow. Basic crop rotation.
Now, sooner or later, the townspeople come over and tell me that the land my father gave me, that he worked, sweat, and bled for, is not mine but the societys, so I am supposed to plow it all up, and plant corn again. Not only is this a gross denial of my personal rights, but it is an unwise decision as far as raising crops. But, if I am not to be killed/excommunicated, it is my only option.
Now, I have a field I have already worked to plant and fertilize, in order to better myself, which I cannot work as I see fit anymore, I no longer see the fruit of my labor, because society needs it. The parasitic middle class ****(I really hope that's not a swear word here, it's latin ffs) socialist populus becomes a parasitic mob. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why would the townspeople do something rash like that? If they wanted to get rid of your squash farm for corn, why not attend the next meeting and explain your reasoning why keeping the farm is a good idea? This is a democracy, after all.
And if you plant 60 instead of 40 acres for being a good sport, there are other ways to reward people than money. Too many people think money is the univeral, be-all end-all human motivator. It's not. There are plenty of ways to reward people... such as awards (fade of the week?), recognition, etc.
Boring to have one method? Well, I can convert that money to a thousand different rewards of my choosing. A plaque is just that, unless a black market on plaques opens up or something.
The point is that people view material possessions as the only concrete definition of "good things happening." This is wrong, but the idea is fostered by capitalism.
<!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Oct 27 2003, 07:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Oct 27 2003, 07:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The point is that people view material possessions as the only concrete definition of "good things happening." This is wrong, but the idea is fostered by capitalism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's sort of a natural reaction to wanting to have material things like 'food' and 'shelter' and such though, so you have to cut the human race some slack, Windel. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 27 2003, 07:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 27 2003, 07:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Oct 27 2003, 07:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Oct 27 2003, 07:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The point is that people view material possessions as the only concrete definition of "good things happening." This is wrong, but the idea is fostered by capitalism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's sort of a natural reaction to wanting to have material things like 'food' and 'shelter' and such though, so you have to cut the human race some slack, Windel. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> MonsE: 1 Commies: 0 <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Food and shelter aren't material possessions, they are necessities. Having a jacuzzi is a material possession.
And this idea is too quickly delving into the idea that under Communism/Socialism, a person has no material possessions. That's not true. If you live in a Communist society, you will get things from the government that you might expect to have under capitalism as well - a vacuum cleaner, for example. You have this vacuum cleaner. You paid 100% income tax, and the government gave you, among other things, a vacuum cleaner. The vaccum cleaner is now yours. (If you live an apartment building and there's 1 vacuum per floor, then that's a different case) It is a material possession.
Also, get the idea out of your heads that the government can just wantonly take something away from you. Let's pretend that every single person in the country has a vacuum cleaner. The government can't take it away from you -- who's it going to give it to? If it gives it to someone, there will be 1 person with 2 vacuums, 600 million with 1, and 1 with 0 (you). That's economic inequity, something that is (structurally) impossible under Communism.
Also, somebody said earlier that if you build a bike, the govt. will take it away from you. Not true. How did you build the bike? You took your check from the government and bought the metal poles and tires and whatnot, and then you assembled your bike. You got the stuff from the govt, and now you built the bike out of those materials.
^ To explain this further. Communism/Socialism is literally universal, 100% welfare. Those people in the US now who lived under pre-Clinton welfare live under a sort of Socialism (it's only 1 way of course but we're not concerned with that right now). The government is not allowed to compel them to spend their checks on one thing or another; additionally, it is unable to TAKE the check back from the recipient. In other words, the government's role in an individual's buying decisions ENDS the moment the money passes into the hands of the citizen.
Additionally, Communism does not assume or enforce monotony, conformity, or whatever. When you get your check from the government, you can spend it in any way you want. You can buy a bike and a basketball. Or you could buy two bikes. Or you could say "to hell with it" and save up for a month to buy a computer.
Communism in no way is intended to depress the spirits of the people and dishearten people about their jobs. The job is not your life, your life is not your job. Life is about OTHER things, like watching the Yankees get owned, not sitting in a cubicle or working at a factory. The whole point of Communism is to decentralize an individual's life, off of their job. In capitalism, if you don't work, you don't eat, so you have to work. If you want to eat more, you have to work more, sapping your time, energy, and spirits AWAY from other things. The system is built around an inherent lack of plenty; Communism is built around an inherent presence of plenty.
<!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Oct 27 2003, 11:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Oct 27 2003, 11:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Communism in no way is intended to depress the spirits of the people and dishearten people about their jobs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why does it <i>always</i> do so, then? How many failed attempts at communism must the world's college students see before they realise that it is never, ever, going to work?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Excerpt from dictionary.com
work·ing (adj.) Performing work: a working committee. Operating or functioning as required: a working flashlight. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So nothing functions as required? Hmm, my heart seems to be pumping blood, my keyboard seems to be "working". Unless you want to dispute the definition you are wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 28 2003, 01:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 28 2003, 01:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm afraid that I have no idea what you are trying to say Menix. Can you explain further? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think he is trying to take a crap on my reply...
A dictionary is nice Menix but you can't use them in life. Life in NOT black and white. Its all grey. Which is why I think that, nothing In the world right now "works" Thats my opinion and obviously nobody here agrees. So, yep.
I fully agree with CWAG, there are an incredible amount of faults in the US system, maybe even more so than in some communist countries, but the mere fact that they have a competetive market and a higher standard of living for individuals produces an effect of personal security around people. Most Americans (myself included) have a sort of disconnect with the troubles of the world, there's this security web around us that forms because we see our wealth increase yearly, and have opprotunites constantly presented to us.
I have so many problems with US domestic and foreign policy it would be hard for to list them all, but the fact that I have a lot to gain personally by living here makes me ignore them in turn earning more for myself. A Communist state doesn't have the incentive to ignore the problems, and until there can be a replacement for personal financial gain as a motivator it will remain a problem. As I said earlier Communism can exist on a small scale because people are motivated by wanting to see their community thrive, but this fails when the population gets too high.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 28 2003, 03:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 28 2003, 03:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Oct 27 2003, 11:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Oct 27 2003, 11:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Communism in no way is intended to depress the spirits of the people and dishearten people about their jobs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why does it <i>always</i> do so, then? How many failed attempts at communism must the world's college students see before they realise that it is never, ever, going to work? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In a statewide survey, can you interview 4 people and draw conclusions?
Sure, you can draw all the conclusions you want. They will not be representative statistically though until you increase that count times ~250. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Is this apropos of something?
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Oct 28 2003, 03:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Oct 28 2003, 03:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A dictionary is nice Menix but you can't use them in life. Life in NOT black and white. Its all grey. Which is why I think that, nothing In the world right now "works" Thats my opinion and obviously nobody here agrees. So, yep.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We would be savages, running around and grunting if we did not have structured languages. It is impossible to reason beyond a primitive level without language, so dictionaries definately have their uses in life. Also, there is plenty of black/white in the world. However, life is not a color, maybe you need to consult a dictionary. Also you have ignored to challenge the definition "work: perfoming or functioning as required", making your statements on how nothing works meaningless as there are things which "perform or function as required" in the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Oct 27 2003, 11:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Oct 27 2003, 11:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Food and shelter aren't material possessions, they are necessities. Having a jacuzzi is a material possession.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's meaningless. Food is not a necessity for someone who wants to die and a jacuzzi is a necessity for someone who wants to live with a jacuzzi. You can't list everything under these two categories and expect to be treated seriously since necessity depends on situation and material posessions can fulfill necessities.
Comments
Whoops, you don't own yourself in a communist state. Oh look someone started a war and sent you to die, whoops you're dead, so much for self-improvement without self ownership, what a joke. Note: there is no country in existance that recognizes full ownership of own body, but it is more restricted in socialist states than in others.
Also, how about I make something I'm proud of and keep it? Whoops some dude comes to take it away, looks like a good time to stock up on ammunition.
<i>edit: quote spam</i>
If, as Menix claims, the initiation of a 'socialist' economy would stop a country dead in its tracks, how did Russia and China both industrialize their countries in about a third of the time it took the western capitalists? How did these countries even continue going after the first day? I'll tell you why; there are forces that can counteract and even surpass the amount of self-interest in every person.
Also: it is seen that people, when driven to sheer necessity, will act totally in self interest to get themselves food and whatever. They even kill each other. But what if you give them what they need? You will see a drastic decrease in their greediness. The problem (reason why socialism will never work in America <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->) is that Americans believe that personal property is a NECESSITY. It isn't one, but because people feel that it is, they act in self-interest regarding it -- much like they would with real needs like food or shelter.
Also: Menix, you take too much of a view that the communist system is like a vacuum. It's not. It is more like a fruit tree. The roots of the fruit tree take resources from the ground that it is dependent on, and then the resources are converted to leaves, bark, and fruit, that eventually fall back to the ground, enriching it. A vacuum takes and never returns. If the government took something from you in taxes, it comes back to you in some way. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilised and organised society. Socialism is basically just a government with 100% income tax. But since you don't have any money to yourself, the government gives you everything you need.
Ok CommunistWithAGun, what exactly makes Communism "archaic?"
Perhaps you got your idea of American society from TV, and assume that everyone has a nice bourgeois job here, and there's no more class struggle, no more workers or anything (so Communism is obsolute). Please be a little less VAGUE or I'm going to assume that this is what you think. I have no idea what the hell you just said in your most recent post--please extrapolate comrade.
And please leave such slander as "zealotry" out of this. If that is what you are going to call everyone who has a solid viewpoint, a zealot, then perhaps. ...................... u should play starcraft ololo`~L`~``
No seriously. You call me a zealot for having a firm viewpoint and you don't respond to any of my arguments, if you don't have a viewpoint on something I recommend you don't argue about it.
MENIX, normally I'd argue with you but your idea of Communism is countries like North Korea. You should know better; you should know to judge things by their actions and not what they call themselves. For example, the USA says it's capitalist, but you say it is too much of a welfare state and therefore not capitalist -- if I were to attack the USA, you would say that I wasn't attacking capitalism because the USA wasn't capitalist. Whether or not I agree with this, something similar arises when you hate on, say, Cuba, and I am a Communist. Cuba says it's Communist but is not because of its unsocialistic and undemocratic existence.
Neither USSR nor China had full revokation of private property. The USSR was closer to a dictatorship than anything else and China always had private ownership, the state simply had rigid control of it. What I meant was the full revokation of property ownership which has never happened, even if the ownership wasn't fully recognized by the state.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->MENIX, normally I'd argue with you but your idea of Communism is countries like North Korea.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
False, I have already stated the definition of Communism and it does not include North Korea.
You also seem to ignore that you can not have a workable common pool without property. If I take an apple then I am now in control of the apple, it is impossible for another man to take that apple unless I release it. If no one can control the apple (as is the case with no property) then we will stand over the apple and say over and over: "My apple" "My apple" "My apple" without being able to do anything. There has to be implied ownership for any system to work. Human civilization without some understanding of property is an oxymoron. In order for you to take someting you must first imply that you own it in some way. What then? The first person to call out "I own the whole country" gets all the land? This is just idiotic.
You could have asked for an explanation directly rather than refused to give a legitimate face to Communism by calling it "idiotic" by virtue of that silly misunderstanding that you're waving around this time. If you don't know about something, don't talk ****, I'm happy to explain it to you in a civil manner if you would just adopt one. Don't forget in the 1700's they called you guys "idiotic" and said that democracy would lead to society falling apart.
Property is an old idea--I agree. But the original property in our minds was the idea that the land, the earth, and all its fruits, had been given to humans as a whole. This idea of public property, based on inclusion, has since been eclipsed by private property, which is based on exclusion as you stated.
The apple analogy is far too simplistic and unrepresentative of real human society for me to expand on, so I can only talk about society. Property has not always been a universal idea, it is something like the idea of nationalism or hate crimes, ideas that are attributed absolutism but are new creations.
Anyway what you're asking me to do is tell you how a Communist society would equitably distribute goods. Well I could talk to you about the ideals that represent Communism but I really have to get going and an organizational essay is very tough to write so I can't right now.
...
Anyway what you're asking me to do is tell you how a Communist society would equitably distribute goods. Well I could talk to you about the ideals that represent Communism but I really have to get going and an organizational essay is very tough to write so I can't right now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I called the situation in my example idiotic.
What is equitable distribution of goods? Equitable for whom? For what purpose? Who decides who gets the goods? Who decides who has too much? What is too much? These are the same questions Ayn Rand put against socialism and which socialists only answered by invoking "the good of society". Well screw society, I want to decide how I distribute the fruits of my labor. If you want someone to distribute yours, you're welcome, but don't come to my door and say you want me to give up my goods for "the good of society".
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What is equitable distribution of goods? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A state in which everyone is awarded an equal share, by the labor system of value, of the produce of society.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Equitable for whom? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For all members of society.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For what purpose?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To maintain the hegemony of the working class.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Who decides who gets the goods?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The workers' and farmers' councils, totally democratic Townhall meetings, plan as their constituency directs to produce this or that. Then everyone gets the same share in currency for their 40-hour work week, shorter for youths and the disabled, and they take this to depots within the society, shops, with warehouses that connect them across the globe to account for shortages, and people spend their money as they want.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Who decides who has too much?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I <i>assume</i> that in this and the next question you mean right after the revolution. If the question is brought up at the councils then it's up to the general populace to decide.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What is too much?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the people decide is too much. If you have a gold watch that your grandfather gave you, so what. But if you own a bunch of good farm land that you're letting sit there, while the workers' council is having bad harvests and nowhere to farm, then the people are going to take it.
Here's a situation for you. I, along with that watch, have inherited a few acres of farmland. However, my father, bless his soul, didn't have a clue how to farm, and planted corn there every year. Planting corn in the same fields every year kills the nutrition content of the soil, and thus, you can't grow anything. So, I start to grow, say... squash, which requires a different set of nutrients to grow. Basic crop rotation.
Now, sooner or later, the townspeople come over and tell me that the land my father gave me, that he worked, sweat, and bled for, is not mine but the societys, so I am supposed to plow it all up, and plant corn again. Not only is this a gross denial of my personal rights, but it is an unwise decision as far as raising crops. But, if I am not to be killed/excommunicated, it is my only option.
Now, I have a field I have already worked to plant and fertilize, in order to better myself, which I cannot work as I see fit anymore, I no longer see the fruit of my labor, because society needs it. The parasitic middle class ****(I really hope that's not a swear word here, it's latin ffs) socialist populus becomes a parasitic mob.
If one farmer wants to work harder then the rest of all the others and plant 60 acres instead of 40, then he should have every right to do that, without being stripped of the result of his work. BY planting those 20 extra acres, he's providing more food for society, bettering the quality of life for others, but he's being rewarded nothing for doing it, and in fact, would be abused by the mob for straying outside the program. The benevolant people of society, who have a strong work ethic, are cast aside because they strive to better themselves. That's no system I'd want to live in.
I hold rights of the individual paramount to the rights of any society.
Here's a situation for you. I, along with that watch, have inherited a few acres of farmland. However, my father, bless his soul, didn't have a clue how to farm, and planted corn there every year. Planting corn in the same fields every year kills the nutrition content of the soil, and thus, you can't grow anything. So, I start to grow, say... squash, which requires a different set of nutrients to grow. Basic crop rotation.
Now, sooner or later, the townspeople come over and tell me that the land my father gave me, that he worked, sweat, and bled for, is not mine but the societys, so I am supposed to plow it all up, and plant corn again. Not only is this a gross denial of my personal rights, but it is an unwise decision as far as raising crops. But, if I am not to be killed/excommunicated, it is my only option.
Now, I have a field I have already worked to plant and fertilize, in order to better myself, which I cannot work as I see fit anymore, I no longer see the fruit of my labor, because society needs it. The parasitic middle class ****(I really hope that's not a swear word here, it's latin ffs) socialist populus becomes a parasitic mob. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would the townspeople do something rash like that?
If they wanted to get rid of your squash farm for corn, why not attend the next meeting and explain your reasoning why keeping the farm is a good idea? This is a democracy, after all.
And if you plant 60 instead of 40 acres for being a good sport, there are other ways to reward people than money. Too many people think money is the univeral, be-all end-all human motivator. It's not. There are plenty of ways to reward people... such as awards (fade of the week?), recognition, etc.
It's sort of a natural reaction to wanting to have material things like 'food' and 'shelter' and such though, so you have to cut the human race some slack, Windel. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
It's sort of a natural reaction to wanting to have material things like 'food' and 'shelter' and such though, so you have to cut the human race some slack, Windel. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
MonsE: 1 Commies: 0 <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Having a jacuzzi is a material possession.
And this idea is too quickly delving into the idea that under Communism/Socialism, a person has no material possessions. That's not true. If you live in a Communist society, you will get things from the government that you might expect to have under capitalism as well - a vacuum cleaner, for example. You have this vacuum cleaner. You paid 100% income tax, and the government gave you, among other things, a vacuum cleaner. The vaccum cleaner is now yours. (If you live an apartment building and there's 1 vacuum per floor, then that's a different case) It is a material possession.
Also, get the idea out of your heads that the government can just wantonly take something away from you. Let's pretend that every single person in the country has a vacuum cleaner. The government can't take it away from you -- who's it going to give it to? If it gives it to someone, there will be 1 person with 2 vacuums, 600 million with 1, and 1 with 0 (you). That's economic inequity, something that is (structurally) impossible under Communism.
Also, somebody said earlier that if you build a bike, the govt. will take it away from you. Not true. How did you build the bike? You took your check from the government and bought the metal poles and tires and whatnot, and then you assembled your bike. You got the stuff from the govt, and now you built the bike out of those materials.
^ To explain this further. Communism/Socialism is literally universal, 100% welfare. Those people in the US now who lived under pre-Clinton welfare live under a sort of Socialism (it's only 1 way of course but we're not concerned with that right now). The government is not allowed to compel them to spend their checks on one thing or another; additionally, it is unable to TAKE the check back from the recipient. In other words, the government's role in an individual's buying decisions ENDS the moment the money passes into the hands of the citizen.
Additionally, Communism does not assume or enforce monotony, conformity, or whatever. When you get your check from the government, you can spend it in any way you want. You can buy a bike and a basketball. Or you could buy two bikes. Or you could say "to hell with it" and save up for a month to buy a computer.
Communism in no way is intended to depress the spirits of the people and dishearten people about their jobs. The job is not your life, your life is not your job. Life is about OTHER things, like watching the Yankees get owned, not sitting in a cubicle or working at a factory. The whole point of Communism is to decentralize an individual's life, off of their job. In capitalism, if you don't work, you don't eat, so you have to work. If you want to eat more, you have to work more, sapping your time, energy, and spirits AWAY from other things. The system is built around an inherent lack of plenty; Communism is built around an inherent presence of plenty.
Why does it <i>always</i> do so, then? How many failed attempts at communism must the world's college students see before they realise that it is never, ever, going to work?
work·ing (adj.)
Performing work: a working committee.
Operating or functioning as required: a working flashlight. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So nothing functions as required? Hmm, my heart seems to be pumping blood, my keyboard seems to be "working". Unless you want to dispute the definition you are wrong.
I think he is trying to take a crap on my reply...
A dictionary is nice Menix but you can't use them in life. Life in NOT black and white. Its all grey. Which is why I think that, nothing In the world right now "works" Thats my opinion and obviously nobody here agrees. So, yep.
I have so many problems with US domestic and foreign policy it would be hard for to list them all, but the fact that I have a lot to gain personally by living here makes me ignore them in turn earning more for myself. A Communist state doesn't have the incentive to ignore the problems, and until there can be a replacement for personal financial gain as a motivator it will remain a problem. As I said earlier Communism can exist on a small scale because people are motivated by wanting to see their community thrive, but this fails when the population gets too high.
Why does it <i>always</i> do so, then? How many failed attempts at communism must the world's college students see before they realise that it is never, ever, going to work? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a statewide survey, can you interview 4 people and draw conclusions?
We would be savages, running around and grunting if we did not have structured languages. It is impossible to reason beyond a primitive level without language, so dictionaries definately have their uses in life. Also, there is plenty of black/white in the world. However, life is not a color, maybe you need to consult a dictionary. Also you have ignored to challenge the definition "work: perfoming or functioning as required", making your statements on how nothing works meaningless as there are things which "perform or function as required" in the world.
Having a jacuzzi is a material possession.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's meaningless. Food is not a necessity for someone who wants to die and a jacuzzi is a necessity for someone who wants to live with a jacuzzi. You can't list everything under these two categories and expect to be treated seriously since necessity depends on situation and material posessions can fulfill necessities.