A question to Communists:

[BasketCase]

Thanks.

Wait.

They censor that on British message boards???

 

[Newbunkle]

Thanks.

Wait.

They censor that on British message boards???

Not many, but some yes... lol.

 

[greenpeace]

Of course they will. Rule #2 of Greenpeacocracy: no other authority is allowed to exist. YOU wrote that, not me.

As I have already said, the rules only apply to within the community, it can't be applied to the entire world (or anything outside of the community).

No. I said "Democracy" because I meant "Democracy", which just about everybody uses when they mean free elections, and free elections is what I meant.

Maybe in a more "normal" conversation, but in this kind of debate it still way too vague. I mean, both our socieites are "Democracies."

Omigod, I actually agree with you on something. First time for everything.

No, American-style Republics aren't Utopias because Utopia is impossible.

Right, so it won't achieve permanent peace.

I already made it pretty galactically clear that I disagree with your definition of "harm". So my reply to the above is a plain and simple: "bollix". Iraq War #2 did less "net intentional harm" than letting Saddam stay in power.

Even if you have the classical "no damage is allowed, or huge human rights violation (as in what we could both easily agree on)," it still is more harm.

Either way, that (the previous sentence) is not very important (and kinda off-topic).

Whats more important is why do you disagree with the definition of harm.

 

[BasketCase]

As I have already said, the rules only apply to within the community, it can't be applied to the entire world (or anything outside of the community).

Bingo. And as I already pointed out, long ago, there are very few people on the entire planet who want to live in a Greenpeacocracy.

In a vain attempt to get back on topic: this is one of the reasons socialism and Communism are a failure--because nobody wants them. The United States has had socialist and communist parties in several Presidential elections; very few people ever vote for them. When given a choice, and when allowed to exercise that choice freely--within the safety of a private polling booth, where nobody can see their vote, or punish them for it, or ever know how they voted--they universally vote against both systems.

And they vote against yours. Your system has hardly ever existed because (we already covered this) nobody has attempted it. People do have the freedom to attempt it if they want; your system does not exist because nobody wants it.


Yes, I realize I'm being cruel and heartless, and I think I might have just trolled you. I don't care. This the truth as far as I can tell. And from the huge volume of posts I've written in this messed-up thread, you can see how much I've been grinding my gears over this extremely difficul issue.

Right, so it won't achieve permanent peace.

Exactly. No system ever will. Except one--extinction.

Whats more important is why do you disagree with the definition of harm.

Who cares? Suppose I were to tell you it's because my religion tells me to? Suppose I told you my religion has a different definition of "harm", and that I must abide by that definition, and spread it to all on Earth? Some religions, were they in my shoes, would try to kill you in order to save your eternal soul.

Knowing "why" doesn't do you any good. People will and do disagree with your definition, and will set up competing systems--and, because they think you are the one doing harm, they will declare war on you.


But, if you want my personal answer to why I disagree with your definition of "harm": read back through the thread because I already explained it. You naturally disagreed with my explanation. Which, frankly, provides a perfect answer: I disagree with your explanation for the same reason you disagree with mine.

You need to get a handle on the fact that your word is not Gospel in here (neither is mine--except when I say that nobody's word is Gospel, that little morsel is in fact Gospel)

 

[BasketCase]

As I have already said, the rules only apply to within the community, it can't be applied to the entire world (or anything outside of the community).

Actually, what I should have done was to keep staring at this line and carry it to its logical conclusion.

The part about people deciding to stay IN the community and change it (perhaps with violence)? Skip that completely for a bit. People may, as you said, choose not to be part of Greenpeaceocracy.

Here's the question I should have asked: where do they go from there?

Very few people decide to go live in a log cabin in the woods (i.e., very few people choose anarchy). They switch to some other system of authority. Which one?

Well, next time there's a breakdown in authority somewhere, observe what happens. When a local currency collapses and money becomes worthless, or when local, state or national government breaks down. When things go really bad and the citizens are left to fend for themselves, they resort to bartering. And, of course, in order to trade something, you gotta build it (or farm it or assemble it or whatever). At some point, the thing being traded must be labor.


And, of course, when people barter, they try to get as much as they can when they make the trade. That rule existed long before the United States did.

In the end, capitalism is the system people default to when all others (such as yours) fail.

Greenpeacocracy has two or three ways in which it's predetermined to go wrong. Capitalism doesn't. Well, it's subject to abuse like all other systems, but capitalism is the most resilient system at continuing to function properly when abused.

 

[greenpeace]

Bingo. And as I already pointed out, long ago, there are very few people on the entire planet who want to live in a Greenpeacocracy.

1. It doesn't matter how many people want it (in terms of whether it would work or not).
2. That statement isn't backed up by anything.

In a vain attempt to get back on topic: this is one of the reasons socialism and Communism are a failure--because nobody wants them. The United States has had socialist and communist parties in several Presidential elections; very few people ever vote for them. When given a choice, and when allowed to exercise that choice freely--within the safety of a private polling booth, where nobody can see their vote, or punish them for it, or ever know how they voted--they universally vote against both systems.

Or it could be that a Communist party or Socialist part makes absolutely no sense. How would you like a Capitalist party (where policies can be anything from near totalitarian, to lassez faire, to whatever).

And they vote against yours. Your system has hardly ever existed because (we already covered this) nobody has attempted it. People do have the freedom to attempt it if they want; your system does not exist because nobody wants it.

You right we covered it, and you were obviously wrong. I could say the same exact thing about you system if I were living in the 1600's.

Whats more important is why do you disagree with the definition of harm

Who cares? Suppose I were to tell you it's because my religion tells me to? Suppose I told you my religion has a different definition of "harm", and that I must abide by that definition, and spread it to all on Earth? Some religions, were they in my shoes, would try to kill you in order to save your eternal soul.

Knowing "why" doesn't do you any good. People will and do disagree with your definition, and will set up competing systems--and, because they think you are the one doing harm, they will declare war on you.

I didn't mean in that way, I meant what you said after this (it doesn't really matter if they disagree in terms of whether it is logically flawed):

But, if you want my personal answer to why I disagree with your definition of "harm": read back through the thread because I already explained it. You naturally disagreed with my explanation. Which, frankly, provides a perfect answer: I disagree with your explanation for the same reason you disagree with mine.

You need to get a handle on the fact that your word is not Gospel in here (neither is mine--except when I say that nobody's word is Gospel, that little morsel is in fact Gospel)

I know it isn't Gospel, I just want to no why you disagree with it. Or basically, why do you think using incentives to get people to work against their will is not harm? In other words, how do you justify things like prostitution, child labor, factory labor, all the stereotypically "bad" jobs, or in other words simply having people work against their will?

 

[Traitorfish]

Or it could be that a Communist party or Socialist part makes absolutely no sense.

Why not? Communists/Socialists recognise the need for some form of organisation within society, they just ask for democratic organisation. Even Anarchists or Anarcho-Communists only oppose authority, they do not necessarily oppose organisation.

 

[greenpeace]

Why not? Communists/Socialists recognise the need for some form of organisation within society, they just ask for democratic organisation. Even Anarchists or Anarcho-Communists only oppose authority, they do not necessarily oppose organisation.

Well, its doesn't make sense in that context. I mean, a "Communist" party could be anything from-Stalin worshopping authoritarians to anarchists, to whatever, its simply too broad. As I said, you can't really have a Capitalist Party either, because there are simply so many different types of capitalism (for example, America can easily be consider Capitalist, but so can Pinochet even though they have widely different views and structures that conflict alot).
Of course you can have a party that has Communist belief, its just that you need to be alot more specific.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ah, I misunderstood. My apologies.

 

[BasketCase]

Bingo. And as I already pointed out, long ago, there are very few people on the entire planet who want to live in a Greenpeacocracy.

1. It doesn't matter how many people want it (in terms of whether it would work or not).
2. That statement isn't backed up by anything.

My statement is backed up by every U.S. election in which there has been a socialist/communist/anarchist party. Very few Americans ever vote for any of these. We Americans do not want these systems, we want mainstream capitalism.

Or it could be that a Communist party or Socialist part makes absolutely no sense.

Now, THAT I agree with.
(Yes, I took Greenpeace completely out of context here)

Oh, and I'd be just fine with a Capitalist party. In fact, we've already got two. They're called Democrats and Republicans.

And they vote against yours. Your system has hardly ever existed because (we already covered this) nobody has attempted it. People do have the freedom to attempt it if they want; your system does not exist because nobody wants it.

You right we covered it, and you were obviously wrong. I could say the same exact thing about you system if I were living in the 1600's.

Uh, no. Capitalism already existed in the 1600's. And in the 1000's. And in the BC years. It's the oldest system on the planet.

Why? Because it works.

I know it isn't Gospel, I just want to no why you disagree with it. Or basically, why do you think using incentives to get people to work against their will is not harm? In other words, how do you justify things like prostitution, child labor, factory labor, all the stereotypically "bad" jobs, or in other words simply having people work against their will?

Ah, what the hey. Maybe you just missed it last time I posted it.

Your definition included both positive and negative incentives. That's my problem. Positive incentives are not harmful. If you refuse one, you're no worse off than you were before it was offered.

There's no way you can call an orgasm harmful.

Edit: Well, actually there WAS this one time my girlfriend sprained her back......

 

[greenpeace]

My statement is backed up by every U.S. election in which there has been a socialist/communist/anarchist party. Very few Americans ever vote for any of these. We Americans do not want these systems, we want mainstream capitalism.

I wouldn't vote for the Communist Party. The reason is, Communism can range from anything like Stalinism, to anarchism, and this system obviously isn't represented by a Communist Party because it would be very contradictory to have a President supporting these beliefs.

Oh, and I'd be just fine with a Capitalist party. In fact, we've already got two. They're called Democrats and Republicans.

Those aren't the Capitalist party, they are parties with Capitalist ideology. A true Capitalist Party would incorporate all Capitalist ideals, but would be conflicting because, for example, the Republicans and the Democrats would be in the same party,

Uh, no. Capitalism already existed in the 1600's. And in the 1000's. And in the BC years. It's the oldest system on the planet.

Why? Because it works.

Capitalism=/=Feudalism.

Ah, what the hey. Maybe you just missed it last time I posted it.

Your definition included both positive and negative incentives. That's my problem. Positive incentives are not harmful. If you refuse one, you're no worse off than you were before it was offered.

So is child labor fine because it only relies on positive incentives? How are you going to eat if you refuse positive incentive?

There's no way you can call an orgasm harmful.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Oh wait your serious...
So is rape not harm since its only an orgasm? In the case of prostitution, is it not harm to hae to be subjected to getting screwed by a bunch of random strangers day in and day out whether you want to screw the individuals or not?

Fundamentally though, do you belief that all people would work the same jobs or work as hard if it wasn't for positive incentive?
If not, why should these people have to work at these jobs (unless they provide the essentials)?
If you say its ok because positive incentives make up for the work, how can you varify that people wouldn't be happier being allowed to do anything non-harmful instead of having to be forced at the threat of starvation to work what may be an undesirable job?

 

[chad187]

Funny how all these self proclaimed communist none of them live or have lived in a communist state and when you suggest they do they make up some BS excuse.

 

[Newbunkle]

Funny how all these self proclaimed communist none of them live or have lived in a communist state and when you suggest they do they make up some BS excuse.

I know... It makes me sad that their minority wants to change the way everybody else lives, and yet they won't even test it to see if it works. They take it on faith that it will work, next time...

I just want to point out that I'm not against people voluntarily living in a communist commune where everybody wants to live that way (if they want to leave they should be allowed to). If that's what they want, then good luck to them, just don't force it on anyone else.

 

[BasketCase]

Funny how all these self proclaimed communist none of them live or have lived in a communist state and when you suggest they do they make up some BS excuse.

One Communist elsewhere in Off Topic said this.

He simply didn't want to move.

 

[BasketCase]

I wouldn't vote for the Communist Party. The reason is, Communism can range from anything like Stalinism, to anarchism

So could your system. You said yourself that sometimes a little harm would be necessary to enforce it. All it would take was somebody who disagreed with you on how much.

Those aren't the Capitalist party, they are parties with Capitalist ideology. A true Capitalist Party would incorporate all Capitalist ideals

They are both capitalist parties. They simply disagree on what ideal capitalism is.

It's the same old problem again: people disagree about the definitions.

So is child labor fine because it only relies on positive incentives?

I had a part time job for six months when I was fourteen. What's the problem?

How are you going to eat if you refuse positive incentive?

The kind was hungry before the job was offered. The kid was just as hungry (no more and no less) after he (or his parents) refused the job. Therefore the positive incentive did no harm.

Oh, and how do most families handle the above? Simple: the parent gets a job.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Oh wait your serious...

Actually both at the same time.

So is rape not harm since its only an orgasm?

Rape is harm. An orgasm is not. Once again, the positive incentive is not the problem. According to most psychologists, orgasm is not the goal of most rapists. The rapist generally desires control and power rather than pleasure. If he wants pleasure, he need look no further than his right hand...... (that's another case of "funny" and "serious" at the same time)

In the case of prostitution, is it not harm to hae to be subjected to getting screwed by a bunch of random strangers day in and day out whether you want to screw the individuals or not?

You're getting it backwards. In this case, the orgasm is incentive for the CUSTOMER, not the PROSTITUTE. It's the prostitute who is abusing the incentive here.

Fundamentally though, do you belief that all people would work the same jobs or work as hard if it wasn't for positive incentive?

No.

If not, why should these people have to work at these jobs (unless they provide the essentials)?

They don't have to.

Five years ago I was working in software development at a higher salary. I chose a lower-paying job because the stress level on my old one was destroying my health. Yes, that means I get less money. That is my choice.

Not yours.

If you say its ok because positive incentives make up for the work

I didn't. Therefore no problem here.

 

[Princeps]

Funny how all these self proclaimed communist none of them live or have lived in a communist state and when you suggest they do they make up some BS excuse.

Self-proclaimed communists? I don't think you find many self-proclaimed communists in these forums. I'm socialist, or a libertarian socialist, which is virtually synamonous with anarchism, but call me whatever.

He simply didn't want to move.

Well, he's quite right. North Korea isn't a godless socialist country: it's a country ruled by a totalitarian right-wing regime which follows the cult of ancestor worship. Indeed, they rarely even mention communism in their ideology.

I know... It makes me sad that their minority wants to change the way everybody else lives, and yet they won't even test it to see if it works. They take it on faith that it will work, next time...

Well, actually, a minority of the capitalists, the IMF and WB elite, a group of arrogant economist, want to change your life, and they changed the life of the South East Asians a lot during the last crisis. They have tested whether their theories work or not, in Chile, but they refuse to recognize that their theories in fact, have not worked: half of Chile is a desert, and it's economy collapsed due to the reforms, only to be saved by Keynesian measures. The IMF likes to ram it's "free market capitalism" down people's throat by ruthlessly exploiting crisis situations, unrepresentative dictatorships, and disasters, and also, politically motivated use of debt.

 

[greenpeace]

So could your system. You said yourself that sometimes a little harm would be necessary to enforce it. All it would take was somebody who disagreed with you on how much.

It couldn't range from Stalinism to Anarchism, there is a set government type.

They are both capitalist parties. They simply disagree on what ideal capitalism is.

It's the same old problem again: people disagree about the definitions.

Exactly, thats why there is no Capitalist Party nor should there be a general Communist Party.

I had a part time job for six months when I was fourteen. What's the problem?

This is the problem, "Many children worked 16 hour days under atrocious conditions"

The kind was hungry before the job was offered. The kid was just as hungry (no more and no less) after he (or his parents) refused the job. Therefore the positive incentive did no harm.

Can you please explain to me why someone who is hungry would have to become a steel mill worker to not be hungry? I mean, I can understand spending a some time providing essentials to get essentials, but why would you have spend countless hours working away your life?

Oh, and how do most families handle the above? Simple: the parent gets a job.

No, American-style Republics aren't Utopias because Utopia is impossible

You're getting it backwards. In this case, the orgasm is incentive for the CUSTOMER, not the PROSTITUTE. It's the prostitute who is abusing the incentive here.

I'm glad the prostiture doesn't have any positive incentive and that all prostitutes would continue their job willfully even if they didn't get any positive incentive .

They don't have to.

Five years ago I was working in software development at a higher salary. I chose a lower-paying job because the stress level on my old one was destroying my health. Yes, that means I get less money. That is my choice.

Not yours.

Either way your spending countless hours at a job you wouldn't do if it weren't for the positivincentive. Unless you actually like you job, in which case good for you (you probably wouldn't join suh a community), however you must realize that many people do not want to do their non-essential job.

Funny how all these self proclaimed communist none of them live or have lived in a communist state and when you suggest they do they make up some BS excuse.

Well my BS excuse is that there is no existing society that fits what I said, and I don't know how to provide the basics, I am still rather young, I have not nearly enough courage, I don't any real plan on how/where to start, and I don't have any support from friends that I know of, and if I tried to get support I'm 99% sure that a combination of a lack of charisma and my friends relatively stubborn minds (such that they won't accept pure logic alone) would not allow me to gain any real support, and the support I would get would porbably be from people who also don't know how to provide the basics, are rather young, etc.
Besides, if this was a parallel universe where the entire Earth did not have American-style Capitalism, would you go form your own Capitalistic Republic?

 

[BasketCase]

It couldn't range from Stalinism to Anarchism, there is a set government type.

Dude. Get this through your skull:

Greenpeacocracy has two rules: #1, prevent people from doing harm. #2, no other authority should exist. A Stalinist dictatorship that enforces these rules with draconian force and firing squads, and a laissez-faire regime (i.e. near-anarchy) that puts next to no effort into enforcement at all, both obey your two Rules.

YOu say it can't be done--well guess what, Nimrod, I just did it.

Your rules say WHAT should be done. THEY DO NOT SAY HOW.


The reason capitalism works so much better is because it doesn't run on rules that anybody wrote down. It runs on rules that are implicit in the nature of life. Rules that existed before pens and paper (and indeed, before alphabets).

Those rules cannot be changed. But we can improve the methods by which we appease them. Used to be we would hunt for food--or fight for it. And we would fight for mates to. We came up with a gigantic improvement. Instead of fighting for stuff, we trade for it. And instead of fighting for that hot babe, we came up with movie theaters, nice restaurants, and flower shops. A few people have of course not entirely shaken off their Neanderthal genes, and still fight over women--we throw people in jail when they do that.

Exactly, thats why there is no Capitalist Party nor should there be a general Communist Party.

Yes there is, Greenpeace. There are several of both. There are many different Capitalist parties, and many different Communist parties. I've seen how badly you mangle definitions--your word is not law here, and your definition of "capitalism" is, to put it bluntly, bollocks.

Can you please explain to me why someone who is hungry would have to become a steel mill worker to not be hungry?

Because he doesn't want to be a farmer?

I mean, I can understand spending a some time providing essentials to get essentials, but

THAT IS THE WHOLE GODDAMN POINT!!!

but why would you have spend countless hours working away your life?

You just keep failing to get it. The above line in really big annoying type should have driven it home, but I know it didn't.

You are going to spend countless hours working away your life. No matter what. In a steel mill or in a Communist state or an anarchy or a Greenpeacocracy.

A thousand years ago, people worked their lives away for poor and unreliable food supplies, ramshackle wood or thatch houses (WITH NO INTERNET CONNECTIONS), primitive pointy weapons, poor law enforcement, and cheesy musical instruments.

Today we work 16 hours a day in steel mills for excellent and very reliable food supplies, much better-built and better insulated houses, Internet connections for ten bucks a month, guns, tanks, jet planes, and lots of other awesome weapons for killing stupid morons who try to take our stuff, much better law enforcement methods such as tissue typing and DNA analysis.....and truly awesome music.

Me? Well, I kinda break the rules. In fact, I average only six a day. As a result I get a lower salary and fewer goodies.

That is my choice. Yet another extremely simple idea you don't seem to be getting. If somebody wants to work longer hours for more money, the choice should be theirs, not yours. You have no right to tell anybody how many hours are "too many".

People chose to work in those dirty factories for 16 hours a day at cheesy salaries because it was an improvement to their lifestyle. You don't seem to get that back then, they didn't have the Internet, and they didn't have pink fiberglass insulation for their houses, producing food took a LOT more work than it does today, and a whole lot of the goodies you now take for granted DID NOT EXIST.

Well my BS excuse is that there is no existing society that fits what I said, and I don't know how to provide the basics, I am still rather young, I have not nearly enough courage, I don't any real plan on how/where to start

Sounds like you're not qualified to be telling people how to run the planet then. If you want to change the system, you need a viable system to change to, and you need to work out how to do it. The whole reason the world is capitalist and not socialist is because humans have never been able to figure those two out.

 

[Traitorfish]

People chose to work in those dirty factories for 16 hours a day at cheesy salaries because it was an improvement to their lifestyle.

While your basic point is valid, that's a distortion of facts. Until relatively recently, the average worker barely made ends meet with the standard 16-18 hours, let alone with a reasonable working day, so this so-called choice really boiled down to "work ridiculous hours or starve".

 

[BasketCase]

Back then, it was either 16-18 hours in a factory or 18-20 hours on a farm (also barely making ends meet). The unreasonably long work day (in order to barely make ends meet)was simply unavoidable.

We have the choice today (I myself only work six hours a week and am happy with my mediocre paycheck) but back at the dawn of the Industrial Age, this choice did not exist.