A question to Communists:

[BasketCase]

Still I stand by it being harm because it gets people to work against their direct will.

Eat regularly or be punished with hunger. Avoid wild animals or get clawed and bitten.

Your body threatens you with pain, thereby forcing you to do things against your direct will. Therefore life is harm. Commit suicide or you are brain-explodingly wrong.

Your body tempts you with pleasure in order to get you to reproduce. Pleasure is incentive. Incentive is bad. Therefore sex is bad. Your words, not mine. Abstain from sex forever or you are brain-explodingly wrong.


Oh, wait--you get to break your own rules because you said you were a hypocrite.

I'm convinced. Your system is a failure. Thanks for providing the proof.

 

[greenpeace]

Eat regularly or be punished with hunger. Avoid wild animals or get clawed and bitten.

Your body threatens you with pain, thereby forcing you to do things against your direct will. Therefore life is harm. Commit suicide or you are brain-explodingly wrong.

Your body tempts you with pleasure in order to get you to reproduce. Pleasure is incentive. Incentive is bad. Therefore sex is bad. Your words, not mine. Abstain from sex forever or you are brain-explodingly wrong.


Oh, wait--you get to break your own rules because you said you were a hypocrite.

I'm convinced. Your system is a failure. Thanks for providing the proof.

I have said this so many times. Of course there are going to be incentives from nature, I'm saying that you shouldn't be given "artificial" incentives, that is incentives from other people to do something other than not harm.
In fact I think I'll edit in all the times I said this:
edit 1:

I know you don't like me saying this, but whenever you tempt people with goodies, you get prostitution and child labor.

edit 2:

click arrow

I never directly stated it in that post (edit 2), but its heavily implied
edit 3:

Are you trying to miss my point? Of course people are going to work against their direct will in order to provide food, nature forces people to work against their will. However, I'm saying people shouldn't be punished for not working against their will by society, because under Capitalism you will loose every thing you own and be starved to death if you can't find work that you are willing to do unless you work undesirable jobs and that is very forceful.
.

I think we had a little confusion, of course you should also provide food for those who physically can't provide it for themselves, if you easily can. Also, punishment is incentive.

There almost certainly are more quotes, but its unneccessary and you get the point (hopefully).
Also, just because I don't form a break away society (which would be the only way to not be a hypocrite) doesn't affect whether the society works/is desirable or not, so your name calling is completely irrelevant.

 

[greenpeace]

edit, oops double post, sorry.

 

[BasketCase]

See, Greenpeace? By posting again, I know you refused commit suicide.

You allowed the threat of pain to control you. You are a slave. You are a gear in the machine. You have no freedom. You are.......uhhh.........a slave to the--no, wait, I used the word "slave" already........


Omigod--I don't believe it--I actually ran out of smartass remarks.

I must have another one stashed around here somewhere......desk? no.....dresser drawers? no.......under the bed.......damn.........

I....I'm really out of smartass remarks......I don't believe it......

 

[greenpeace]

Did you read the post? I said there are natural incetives, like starvation and such. I'm saying society should not use those incentives like pain and pleasure to get people to do things other than not harm.

Also the smart___ remark would be: "Dude (/comrade), don't let yourself be a slave to teh machine!!!!!1!11112!"

 

[xerexs]

This is my opinion about Communism I believe the command economy behind it doesent work for example China even though they say there Communism but there realy capitalists and that seems to be working for them.And it could work in some countrys but we have yet to find such a goverment that is a utopia.

 

[greenpeace]

This is my opinion about Communism I believe the command economy behind it doesent work for example China even though they say there Communism but there realy capitalists and that seems to be working for them.And it could work in some countrys but we have yet to find such a goverment that is a utopia.

Not all Communism requires command economies, and not all Communism allows countries (at least in the normal definition of "countries"). I may be completely wrong, but you seem to think "Communism= USSR, Mao's China, etc." when it is only true that "Authoritarian Communism= USSR, Mao's China, etc."
edit: oops, I made a big mistake and sais ... normal definition of "economies" when I meant "countries"

 

[xerexs]

No not at all it was just a statment but I dont agree with soviet style communism but what I was saying about china was that I belive you can make more money by being capitalist or socilist.

 

[greenpeace]

No not at all it was just a statment but I dont agree with soviet style communism but what I was saying about china was that I belive you can make more money by being capitalist or socilist.

Oh, I understand now. Except I don't understand what your trying to say about China. Are you saying that Capitalism is more efficient (meaning they produce more)? Because you are probably right about that (its just that some people may not value efficiency as much).

 

[xerexs]

Oh, I understand now. Except I don't understand what your trying to say about China. Are you saying that Capitalism is more efficient (meaning they produce more)? Because you are probably right about that (its just that some people may not value efficiency as much).

Im not saying captilism is better but I really dont know. But im using them as as an example to say they have tooken the step to change from mixed economy or free economy and besides everyone likes money.

 

[greenpeace]

EXPLOSIONS!!! Sorry, thats what I say when I'm having a hard time trying to understand what somebodies saying.
Anyway, I didn't say Capitalism is better, I just said that it can be more efficient. Whatever, this is going nowhere.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Communism works in small doses but those small doses don't work.

Communism works in a community, but the world cannot be divided into communities for it would cause an unequal exchange of trade and conflict would arise.

So Marxist/Leninist Communism only works on theory.

Thats why I support a reformed communism, one that will work better and is not set to thhe rigid policies of other forms...

I believe that if any form of communism is to work it must be like clay... it must be able to mold itself to remain modern but must also be rigid enough to avoid extreme hypocrosy.

Communism is not a failed system... its just failed to pass so far...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ah, so it's only communism if it works perfectly. Anything else, even if something goes slightly wrong, its not communist. A poser of sorts.

In a word, yes.

The problem is that every supposed "communist" nation so far hasn't been a national effort. The elite of the country decide "this is what we're doing now." Without the people supporting the transition, you have those elite forcing the ideology and the reality onto them. When examined, communism is often found to be "impossible" because of human nature; the problem is that we examine that in terms of our own human nature, what would we do, how would we react, how would we feel if suddenly in the situation of, say, a farmer in the Volga basin, upon whom is being forced an ideology with which we do not believe and have no love for, not to mention living in a society that doesn't even follow what it says it does.

Those nations that have called themselves communist have always been dictatorships because of this. True Communism doesn't HAVE a dictatorship, and doesn't HAVE a ruling elite, nor does it HAVE secret police; assumptions of these are often made because every communist nation so far has had them, because they need them to enforce the ideology, because the people don't believe it on their own.

But then, what reason have they to? It's not as if the ruling elite have given up their massive income. It's not as if they have bread on their tables, it's not as if any of the wrongs they were promised would be righted have been so.

The basic point is that yes, every nation so far that has claimed to be communist has not been so, and that that is because the world right now is not ready for communism, and "the party" has to enforce their policy on an unwilling populace.

Were that populace willing participants, and The Party of an understanding that they are only "first among equals," and not rulers, then I'm sure you would see a much better result than we have thus far.

EDIT: Crosspost! Great minds think alike, BTM.

 

[greenpeace]

Communism works in a community, but the world cannot be divided into communities for it would cause an unequal exchange of trade and conflict would arise.

I don't see that as a valid reason local autonomy doesn't work, because it doesn't address why there would be rampant inequality.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

I don't see that as a valid reason local autonomy doesn't work, because it doesn't address why there would be rampant inequality.

Lets say one community is centered around a valuable resource. Now then, we can likely conclude each village's prices wont be exactly the same... Though wealth is dsitriuted equally in all villages, one village may have more then the other, this higher wealth means higher prices, a smaller poorer village may not be able to afford it... so in order to gain access they declare war and all the communities begin to tear apart. Alliances would be formed and many communities would just be destroyed.

Thusly, it doesn't work.

 

[greenpeace]

Lets say one community is centered around a valuable resource. Now then, we can likely conclude each village's prices wont be exactly the same... Though wealth is dsitriuted equally in all villages, one village may have more then the other, this higher wealth means higher prices, a smaller poorer village may not be able to afford it... so in order to gain access they declare war and all the communities begin to tear apart. Alliances would be formed and many communities would just be destroyed.

Thusly, it doesn't work.

First, whats this about prices and sharing everything produced locally equally? The only thing people are required to give to those who can't produce it is the essentials. Other than that those who produce something can keep that something (of course it is probably natural for people to share, but that is irrelevant). If people (or groups as in this case) do harm against others (or attempt to) it is in the best interest of the others to prevent others from actually harming (to pursue greed, in this case) or finishing their goals.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

First, whats this about prices and sharing everything produced locally equally? The only thing people are required to give to those who can't produce it is the essentials. Other than that those who produce something can keep that something (of course it is probably natural for people to share, but that is irrelevant). If people (or groups as in this case) do harm against others (or attempt to) it is in the best interest of the others to prevent others from actually harming (to pursue greed, in this case) or finishing their goals.

In our modern society, everything has a pricetag on it, there is no going back unfortuantly.

People want... its human nature... People Take... Its Human nature... People give... Its the Human Condition... The ability of a person to give as they do is what truly sets us aside from the animals. Dicatorships and some of the extreme communist rules take away the right of those to make choices thus making us less then human. People will always have greed, some will chose to set it aside and others will choose to pursue it.

It is not always un the best intrests of others to avoid harm to those around them. Those that pursue their greed drive to the top and become leaders (unfortuantly) while the true and honest are left behind. The best a Communist community can do is work together to rid corruption and support equality.

I for one would not choose to censor the greed of others, it is their choice and as I said it is the ability to make that choice that makes us human. o strip that choice from them is to reduce them to sub-human.

Censoring is wrong for it gives the illusion that you are right and others are wrong. I am open to the idea of improvement and the possiblity I am wrong.

*If I'm getting a bit far from your questions I apologize, I have a habit of getting into a sorta 'rightious' rant... That and I'm drowzy*

 

[BasketCase]

In our modern society, everything has a pricetag on it, there is no going back unfortuantly.

Last time I bothered to check, each year, Americans spent something like five times as much money on charitable donations as on spectator sports. You hear people complain about how obscene amounts of money go into sports?? Well, Americans donated FIVE TIMES that amount to the needy.

Everything does not have a price tag on it, there's no hopeless dystopia in existence to go back from--except maybe for rap music. As to your depressing line about wanting and giving and taking and stuff, you left one item out: how about trading? Most people go "hey, how about this: you make cars and I'll make sunglasses and we'll trade". Works pretty well.


Okay, Greenpeace, your turn. Time for more fun with warping the dictionary (though I admit you have far more experience at this than I do!)

You're all about defining incentives (positive or negative) as harm. Well, assuming you currently have a job (you could be six years old or retired or quadraplegic or otherwise unable to work--if that's the case, just use yer imagination), here's the deal: your employer hands you a paycheck every two weeks.

Well, guess what? If the paychecks stop coming, what are you gonna do? That's right: spew rude words at your employer, walk out the door, and go get another job. The arrangement is you telling your boss: "Give Greenpeace a paycheck or Greenpeace quits". And if you quit, then your boss has nobody to work on his Dorito-cooking machine and his production comes to a halt.

That is YOU manipulating YOUR BOSS with an incentive. You said incentives are bad. The rest is pretty easy to work out.

Gotcha. You're evil.


I was gonna throw in a "let's see you wriggle out of that" comment, but you may note I've just been posting without reading anything you've written in the last couple days. I can't be bothered right now, I'm too busy trying to beat Raining Blood on Hard difficulty. Pain in the ass.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Last time I bothered to check, each year, Americans spent something like five times as much money on charitable donations as on spectator sports. You hear people complain about how obscene amounts of money go into sports?? Well, Americans donated FIVE TIMES that amount to the needy.

Everything does not have a price tag on it, there's no hopeless dystopia in existence to go back from--except maybe for rap music. As to your depressing line about wanting and giving and taking and stuff, you left one item out: how about trading? Most people go "hey, how about this: you make cars and I'll make sunglasses and we'll trade". Works pretty well.

Actually I meant some of what I said in that from here on out there is no returning to a barter economy.

Money will always exist so long as we continue to exist and thusly everything will have a pricetag.

Most people go "hey, how about this: you make cars and I'll make sunglasses and we'll trade". Works pretty well.

And it take money to construct these products. You can trade for that car but eventually it'll get old and if you want to maintain its condition you'll have to pay money to do so. Trading only works as well as the products being traded. Again, this comes into terms with earlier statements about resources and communities and ect.

To construct these things you need the right materials, so those control the resources control the product and those who control the product set the price...

Last time I bothered to check, each year, Americans spent something like five times as much money on charitable donations as on spectator sports. You hear people complain about how obscene amounts of money go into sports?? Well, Americans donated FIVE TIMES that amount to the needy.

Americans donate a lot to the needy yes but how much of that do you actually reaches them? You donate money, it goes to some African Government so that they may feed their people, instead the they turn up with new car and those depressing commericials continue.

Don't me wrong... I am not one of those people who constantly critize the workings of organizations and corporations and crap... and perhaps I do take a darker look to things... but there is sense in what I say and I only say in the hope that such may be improved in the future.

 

[greenpeace]

Last time I bothered to check, each year, Americans spent something like five times as much money on charitable donations as on spectator sports. You hear people complain about how obscene amounts of money go into sports?? Well, Americans donated FIVE TIMES that amount to the needy.

Everything does not have a price tag on it, there's no hopeless dystopia in existence to go back from--except maybe for rap music. As to your depressing line about wanting and giving and taking and stuff, you left one item out: how about trading? Most people go "hey, how about this: you make cars and I'll make sunglasses and we'll trade". Works pretty well.


Okay, Greenpeace, your turn. Time for more fun with warping the dictionary (though I admit you have far more experience at this than I do!)

You're all about defining incentives (positive or negative) as harm. Well, assuming you currently have a job (you could be six years old or retired or quadraplegic or otherwise unable to work--if that's the case, just use yer imagination), here's the deal: your employer hands you a paycheck every two weeks.

Well, guess what? If the paychecks stop coming, what are you gonna do? That's right: spew rude words at your employer, walk out the door, and go get another job. The arrangement is you telling your boss: "Give Greenpeace a paycheck or Greenpeace quits". And if you quit, then your boss has nobody to work on his Dorito-cooking machine and his production comes to a halt.

That is YOU manipulating YOUR BOSS with an incentive. You said incentives are bad. The rest is pretty easy to work out.

Gotcha. You're evil.


I was gonna throw in a "let's see you wriggle out of that" comment, but you may note I've just been posting without reading anything you've written in the last couple days. I can't be bothered right now, I'm too busy trying to beat Raining Blood on Hard difficulty. Pain in the ass.

Simple, the boss position doesn't exist in the first place because that requires authority and therefore incentive, and the only authority that is allowed to exist
edit: However, you do have a point, in that sometimes it is impossible for two entities having to harm each other even though they aren't doing it to harm ohers (like me whistling and it annoying someone). In this case the only solution is to find a compromise (if the entities can't find a compromise on their own, then the community can).
(in reasonable circumstances) is not the boss position. Oh, BTW its pretty obvious you haven't been reading my posts (and if you were lieing about that, than your horrible at understanding what people are trying to say, no offence meant).

In our modern society, everything has a pricetag on it, there is no going back unfortuantly.

People want... its human nature... People Take... Its Human nature... People give... Its the Human Condition... The ability of a person to give as they do is what truly sets us aside from the animals. Dicatorships and some of the extreme communist rules take away the right of those to make choices thus making us less then human. People will always have greed, some will chose to set it aside and others will choose to pursue it.

There is no need for money if you form a "detached" society. All money does is allow you to convert your labor into other peoples labor. This will be replaced by you laboring for non-essentials and instead of getting the chance to turn that into you receiving others labor directly you will "get" other people's labor either through them willingly sharing it, or gifting it, or working with you because they also like to work the same work you do. Of course, you could get labor through all those things I mentioned in Capitalism, its just that we removed money.

It is not always un the best intrests of others to avoid harm to those around them. Those that pursue their greed drive to the top and become leaders (unfortuantly) while the true and honest are left behind. The best a Communist community can do is work together to rid corruption and support equality.

I'm saying we should give the "true and honest" a chance to lead (only they lead through direct democracy instead of an authoritarian regime, of course).

I for one would not choose to censor the greed of others, it is their choice and as I said it is the ability to make that choice that makes us human. o strip that choice from them is to reduce them to sub-human.

Its impossible to "censor" the greed of others, they will always be allowed to attempt to gain power over others. Its just that in this society those who either don't want others to have power over others, or simply don't want to be ruled over (except by the directly democratic decisions) have an atual voice.

Censoring is wrong for it gives the illusion that you are right and others are wrong. I am open to the idea of improvement and the possiblity I am wrong.

I still don't understand how not allowing people to do harm is censoring.