A question to Communists:

[Gecko1]

Have any of you read Capital, by Marx. How about you read that before you start bickering over the bases of the capitalist system?

 

[Mr_Fusty]

It could have been a good thread and helped non-communists understand their extremist views. I thought about asking some serious questions myself, but they only talk in ideal scenarios and won't acknowledge the flaws (it must be something like a religion). Some of them even popped in and ignored all the questions altogether, just launching into the same tired anti-capitalist rants. It should be locked now.

When the truth is evident, it is hard to argue. It seems that you have a real question on your brain, Nephrite. If you ask me, I'll try to answer to the best of my ability. As an Economics university student (last year - yay!) I may be able to put a hard(ish) left viewpoint that won't be illogical or just plain stupid. It can be as abstract or RL as you wish.

Try me, Nephrite. You have nothing to lose - go on!

 

[BasketCase]

If you look at this scenario from another persons perspective they have to produce the things that person wants

Wrong.
WRONG.
WRONG.

READ what I WROTE.

Because if you don't know how to farm but really enjoy making refrigerators

Two advantages: #1, you are doing what you want. #2, you are receiving what you want

You want to make refrigerators. So you make refrigerators. You make what YOU want, not what the other guy wants.


If your reading is that bad, I guess there's no point replying to any of that other stuff you wrote.

Or are you trying to twist my words intentionally.....? Which is it, did you make a mistake or are you pulling dishonest thread shenanigans?

 

[BasketCase]

how can you guarentee that that person wanted to produce those things?

How can you guarantee under Greenpeacocracy that people will only produce what they want?

I've already shown that you can't: "Well, I don't want to do the manual labor, but--" You said that several times in here. You don't want to farm, but you'll do it anyway. That is unwanted labor.

So you had no right to demand that I guarantee that people produce only what they want. That's a double standard. But you know what, I'll answer it anyway. I can't guarantee that people will produce only what they want under capitalism. But I can guarantee that capitalism will minimize the amount of unwanted labor that is done.

 

[greenpeace]

You want to make refrigerators. So you make refrigerators. You make what YOU want, not what the other guy wants.

I know you want to make refrigerators, in fact, it basically works out for you. But if you look at all the people involved then you will see it can easily not "work out" because to mine the metals and farm the food to feed you basically requires unwanted labor.

How can you guarantee under Greenpeacocracy that people will only produce what they want?

I've already shown that you can't: "Well, I don't want to do the manual labor, but--" You said that several times in here. You don't want to farm, but you'll do it anyway. That is unwanted labor.

So you had no right to demand that I guarantee that people produce only what they want. That's a double standard. But you know what, I'll answer it anyway. I can't guarantee that people will produce only what they want under capitalism. But I can guarantee that capitalism will minimize the amount of unwanted labor that is done.

I'm not saying that your sysem is flawed because people do unwanted labor, people will always do unwanted labor in any society (unless some extreme utopia scenario comes along). I'm saying your system is flawed because people do unwanted labor to produce things that they don't want, which just increases the amount of unwanted labor.

 

[Rashiminos]

I know I am going to start a ten page debate, a flurry of angry members, a few moderaters constantly watching me, when i don't really feel up to any of it, but I really need to ask:

When Communists look around and see the great that Capitalism has done, how can't they support it? Yes, there is poverty, but that is an unfortunate part of life. With all of the great things we have here and all of the people in America making more money than anyone else in the world and having enough to buy food and luxuries, how can they still not support it.

Thank you for letting me know.

A) The inequality between the poor and rich in the United States is one the highest in the industrialized world.

B) The livelihoods of the poor usually don't include luxuries.

C) The circumstances associated with poverty have a large effect on an individual's access to opportunities in life, such as education, and therefore discourage escape from poverty

Going by the 3-times bare mininum food budget line, around 11% of the US impoverished. Other estimates are higher (adjusted for more recent types of expenditures) or lower (adjusted for government programs).

 

[BasketCase]

I know you want to make refrigerators, in fact, it basically works out for you. But if you look at all the people involved then you will see it can easily not "work out" because to mine the metals and farm the food to feed you basically requires unwanted labor.

Wrong. For a reason you'll see next paragraph.

Wait a minute. I need to rewrite that.

Wrong. For a reason I'll explain next paragraph.

I'm not saying that your sysem is flawed because people do unwanted labor, people will always do unwanted labor in any society (unless some extreme utopia scenario comes along). I'm saying your system is flawed because people do unwanted labor to produce things that they don't want, which just increases the amount of unwanted labor.

Completely wrong. And here's why:

If I do it your way, then I can't expect anyone else to mine the metal and make the plastics I need to make a refrigerator. I've gotta do it all myself. Now, I'm really bad at mining (actually I don't know how at all) and I'm really bad at making plastics (actually, I don't know how to do that either). So I will have to do a whole lot of unwanted labor to get the metals and plastics I need.

Here's a much better way: the mining is done by somebody who knows how to do it and is good at it. He can produce a lot more metals, for the same amount of work, than I can. Same with the guy who makes plastics. On the flip side, those two idiots don't know how to make refrigerators and would take an awful long time to make one. Whereas I can slap a fridge together faster than you can say "freon". If they mine the metals and make the plastics I want, that minimizes the amount of unwanted labor I have to do. And if I make the refrigerators they want, that reduces the amount of unwanted labor they have to do.

Your method results in more unwanted labor--that is, more unwanted labor to produce stuff the producer doesn't want. My method reduces the amount of unwanted labor to a minimum, and has a goal that actually makes sense: people get more stuff they do want. People don't give a crap about being entitled to what they produce, it's about what they want. That kid who mowed my lawn didn't want to produce an XBox game, he wanted to get an XBox game.

 

[greenpeace]

Wrong. For a reason you'll see next paragraph.

Wait a minute. I need to rewrite that.

Wrong. For a reason I'll explain next paragraph.



Completely wrong. And here's why:

If I do it your way, then I can't expect anyone else to mine the metal and make the plastics I need to make a refrigerator. I've gotta do it all myself. Now, I'm really bad at mining (actually I don't know how at all) and I'm really bad at making plastics (actually, I don't know how to do that either). So I will have to do a whole lot of unwanted labor to get the metals and plastics I need.

Here's a much better way: the mining is done by somebody who knows how to do it and is good at it. He can produce a lot more metals, for the same amount of work, than I can. Same with the guy who makes plastics. On the flip side, those two idiots don't know how to make refrigerators and would take an awful long time to make one. Whereas I can slap a fridge together faster than you can say "freon". If they mine the metals and make the plastics I want, that minimizes the amount of unwanted labor I have to do. And if I make the refrigerators they want, that reduces the amount of unwanted labor they have to do.

Your method results in more unwanted labor--that is, more unwanted labor to produce stuff the producer doesn't want. My method reduces the amount of unwanted labor to a minimum, and has a goal that actually makes sense: people get more stuff they do want. People don't give a crap about being entitled to what they produce, it's about what they want. That kid who mowed my lawn didn't want to produce an XBox game, he wanted to get an XBox game.

You can work in a group of people wanting to produce a product in which the same amount of unwanted labor is present.

edit: apparently it wasn't clear enough, I meant a group in my society can do it with the same amount of unwanted work (or likly less).

 

[BasketCase]

Nope. If the people in that group are good at it, they get the job done with less work. The amount of unwanted labor goes down.

That's part of why we humans have evolved the practice of dangling paychecks in front of people. When you offer a paycheck to make XBox games, the people who are good at making XBox games will make the most money. Paychecks are partially intended to draw people towards stuff they're good at so that the amount of unwanted work, for human beings as a whole, is reduced to a minimum.

The threat of starvation does not make people "want" to farm. In fact, hunger is universally reviled as a crime against humanity (especially when it occurs in the United States--that's something that "should not be happening"). You had no right to ever call that wanted labor.

 

[greenpeace]

Nope. If the people in that group are good at it, they get the job done with less work. The amount of unwanted labor goes down.

That's part of why we humans have evolved the practice of dangling paychecks in front of people. When you offer a paycheck to make XBox games, the people who are good at making XBox games will make the most money. Paychecks are partially intended to draw people towards stuff they're good at so that the amount of unwanted work, for human beings as a whole, is reduced to a minimum.

The threat of starvation does not make people "want" to farm. In fact, hunger is universally reviled as a crime against humanity (especially when it occurs in the United States--that's something that "should not be happening"). You had no right to ever call that wanted labor.

I meant, it can be done by a group in X (my society) and it will have the same or even less (in fact likly less).

 

[BasketCase]

Not possible because your system can't actually exist.

I already covered the "why" behind that in this thread--there were something like 74 different reasons, but I lost count somewhere along the line.

 

[greenpeace]

Not possible because your system can't actually exist.

I already covered the "why" behind that in this thread--there were something like 74 different reasons, but I lost count somewhere along the line.

I've refuted every single one of your "it won't work"s and you haven't been able to show that I was wrong in any definitive way.

I mean if there are 74, just name one of the top reasons.

 

[BasketCase]

-- Because the citizens in Greenpeacocracy will disagree on the definition of "harm".

Spoiler :

Whereas, almost all humans implicitly accept the principles of capitalism. The trading of goods for other goods, or goods for labor, has been independently invented by many different groups of humans; in fact, even animals practice it. Capitalism is the default, and everybody agrees with it--maybe not in their words, but definitely in their actions.

-- Because you said ONLY two forms of authority are permitted (to prevent harm, and to prevent any other authority from existing), and I showed that other authorities in addition to that are required for a state to exist.

-- Because your system has no means of getting people to contribute in the way that a society as a whole needs. You have no means of getting enough people to be doctors or firemen or policemen or soldiers. Yes, your reply to that was to say that people would want to be doctors or firemen or policemen or soldiers--but by saying that, you impaled yourself on my next paragraph:

-- Because your system gambles its survival on human good nature and relies on them to share goods and labor willingly. You know damn well humans are not like this. For proof, I need point out nothing more esoteric than the newspapers. You need look no further than www.cnn.com for daily examples of human cruelty and dishonesty.

-- Because, as I pointed out, most humans ALREADY practice the essential points of Greenpeacocracy--yet an actual Greenpeacocracy doesn't exist anywhere. As I've said in every Communism thread ever, nobody ever does come up with an actual alternative system--they all end up being capitalism dressed in clever disguises and with fancy-sounding names.

-- And, that previous one reminded me of another one: an actual Greenpeacocracy has never existed (as far as I know, anyway). If your system was possible, somebody, somewhere in six thousand years of recorded history, would almost certainly have tried it already. Since they apparently have not, it follows that the system is probably not possible. This is not 100% certain, but it's statistically very strong.


It's five in the morning, and I'm kind of sleepy, so I'll stop there. Those are some of the most important problems with Greenpeacocracy. Any one of those destroys the system--and I've got four.

I've refuted every single one of your "it won't work"s

You mean, you tried. You failed.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

I personally find it quite interesting that those who defend the status quo believe that resource consumption can quadruple per person each century, the world population can double or triple each century and that this can just go on and on forever! Like magic. Just this unlimited, perpetually increasing supply of raw materials being pumped into the system, forever and ever.
Where will this come from, I wonder? The moon? Perhaps we'll send a few ships off to Alpha Centauri! They'll be back in a few million years and we'll see how the old free market is doing when they get back.

And people say the communists are utopian.

The straightforward reality, is that capitalism is a system based on maximising production. In a free market, nothing is given for free, everything must be traded. This system breeds competition, and huge growth rates in production and scientific knowledge are made not only possible, but inevitable, because there is an incentive to use absolutely everything available. The effect of capitalism in improving the health, diet and general living standards of the population is undeniable. Even the poverty of the 3rd world, so often touted as the failure of the free market is not the result of capitalism, but the result of the distortion of capitalism caused by protectionism and subsidies in the 1st world that cripple agriculture in Africa and elsewhere. The problem with capitalism is much more simple, yet very surprising.
The system produces too much.

Anyone should be able to see that less is sometimes more. Overeating causes obesity. Overwork causes stress, isolation from family and friends, less time to spend on enjoyable activities and poor health from lack of exercise. We have today an economic system that is far more than able to provide for our basic needs, but we continue to push. Our society could provide cinema, music facilities, a healthy diet and maintain emergency services, medical care and all the other basic needs or wants of our population with only a fraction of the production currently used. The concept of exchange, at the heart of market economy, has become a liability. People are working harder than they need to, for things that actually have a negative impact on their quality of life, such as cars and televisions, which damage their health. Meanwhile, rubbish piles up all over the world, and the environment collapses.
What is needed is a system which determines the general needs of the population, gives a small amount of scope for individual preferences and organises production along specific and necessary lines, not merely producing for every want of those with the money to pay.

The question is not that of capitalism or communism (by which I certainly do NOT mean marxism, but merely a centrally planned international economy run on a common and non-commercial basis), but of whether capitalism will be replaced by a more efficient system before or after it collapses of it's own accord.

 

[Newbunkle]

Try me, Nephrite. You have nothing to lose - go on!

I haven't been on this thread for a while. Thanks for the offer. Its more like lots of little questions than one really big one. If I get time later I'll type out a list, and see what happens.

 

[greenpeace]

-- Because the citizens in Greenpeacocracy will disagree on the definition of "harm".

Spoiler :

Whereas, almost all humans implicitly accept the principles of capitalism. The trading of goods for other goods, or goods for labor, has been independently invented by many different groups of humans; in fact, even animals practice it. Capitalism is the default, and everybody agrees with it--maybe not in their words, but definitely in their actions.

What is there to disagree on? You can't intentionally cause net: damage unless the person receiving it wishes it, you can't offer incentives (other than emotional responses and cause and effect, basically "natural" incentive), you can't inhibit people from doing anything other than harm.

You might disagree that it is harm, but how can disagree that something violates that definition of harm? Even if there is a disagreement, its a democracy, people can work it out.

-- Because you said ONLY two forms of authority are permitted (to prevent harm, and to prevent any other authority from existing), and I showed that other authorities in addition to that are required for a state to exist.

Alright, let me say this again. I said that there must be one authority and that it has to be the decentralized direct democracy that involves all the communicating people in the community. I stated that it decides whether or not someone is causing harm as well as a seperate issue (property). Since authority inhibits a person from doing things they wish, then it is harm (by my definition) and the authority has the right to stop it.

-- Because your system has no means of getting people to contribute in the way that a society as a whole needs. You have no means of getting enough people to be doctors or firemen or policemen or soldiers. Yes, your reply to that was to say that people would want to be doctors or firemen or policemen or soldiers--but by saying that, you impaled yourself on my next paragraph:

-- Because your system gambles its survival on human good nature and relies on them to share goods and labor willingly. You know damn well humans are not like this. For proof, I need point out nothing more esoteric than the newspapers. You need look no further than www.cnn.com for daily examples of human cruelty and dishonesty.

There is no need for good human nature. It simply relies on the fact that if you starve you farm, if you think everthings going to burn down you'll want to insure thater is a way to stop it, if you don't feel safe because people are beating each other senseless in dark allies you'll want immediate protection, etc.

-- Because, as I pointed out, most humans ALREADY practice the essential points of Greenpeacocracy--yet an actual Greenpeacocracy doesn't exist anywhere. As I've said in every Communism thread ever, nobody ever does come up with an actual alternative system--they all end up being capitalism dressed in clever disguises and with fancy-sounding names.

Of course, there are people who do similar things to this system. Heck, the strictest totalitarian regime probably allows breathing, which is something that is allowed in this system as well. But do say that this system and Capitalism are logically equivelent would probably require a little reason.

-- And, that previous one reminded me of another one: an actual Greenpeacocracy has never existed (as far as I know, anyway). If your system was possible, somebody, somewhere in six thousand years of recorded history, would almost certainly have tried it already. Since they apparently have not, it follows that the system is probably not possible. This is not 100% certain, but it's statistically very strong.

Same arguement : A Capitalistic Republic never existed to the knowledge of a European in the 1600's, so those stupid Americans obviously are going to fail in late 1700's, right?

It's five in the morning, and I'm kind of sleepy, so I'll stop there. Those are some of the most important problems with Greenpeacocracy. Any one of those destroys the system--and I've got four.

Wow, 5 o'clock? Well, I have to admit, I stayed up till about 2am starting at about ~8pm to make that first post (I typed on and off, though).

You mean, you tried. You failed.

You mean, you tried. You failed.

 

[BasketCase]

What is there to disagree on?

Greenpeace, the world is a whole lot bigger than you. If you ever bothered to actually READ other peoples' opinions, you would already know the answer to this. Radical Muslims say you are causing harm because you are not worshipping Allah. Environmentalists say you're causing harm by living in that fancy resource-consuming house and using 400 watts of electricity to run that PC that's allowing you to read this. Some people say DEMOCRACY ITSELF is harmful, and you said yourself that your ideal government REQUIRES democracy.

They don't care if you can't make any sense of their disagreement with your definition of harm--they think you're the one who's not making any sense.

Even if there is a disagreement, its a democracy, people can work it out.

A democracy is simply rule by 51% of the people. The minority are subjected by force to rules they do not want. See? Your system fails AGAIN.

Alright, let me say this again. I said that there must be one authority and that it has to be the decentralized direct democracy that involves all the communicating people in the community.

And I'll say it again: THIS DOES NOT WORK. You cannot run a nation by sending every single government decision to the People for a vote. There are so many decisions to make that the People do not have enough time to make them. It is physically impossible. You have to delegate a significant portion of government decisions to specialists who DO have the time to do nothing else but make these decisions. By all means, the People should vote for those specialists--but it is physically impossible to have direct democracy running everything.

Yet another failure of Greenpeacocracy: repeated attempts to violate the laws of physics.

It simply relies on the fact that if you starve you farm, if you think everthings going to burn down you'll want to insure thater is a way to stop it, if you don't feel safe because people are beating each other senseless in dark allies you'll want immediate protection, etc.

And I already explained that a civilization (that is, one that intends to survive more than three weeks) cannot afford to wait until the need arises before trying to satisfy it. If you have a heart attack, you need medical attention from somebody who is ALREADY a doctor--you need somebody who decided TEN YEARS AGO to be a doctor. You must prepare for emergencies BEFORE they happen.

And you need a way to get enough people to sign up for all the above duties before anything actually goes wrong. Greenpeacocracy has no way to do that because all the possible methods are called harmful. FAIL.

Same arguement : A Capitalistic Republic never existed to the knowledge of a European in the 1600's

Yes it did. Capitalism existed before civilization did.

Animals (and primitive humans) controlled territory (either with primitive laws or with the tip of a spear or with bared fangs). Animals trade labor for food; in species that hunt in packs, animals who are unable to hunt (or contribute in some other way) are exiled--usually to die. Guess what that is? That's working for your dinner, mister. Trade and capitalism have existed as long as life has existed--they are the system life defaults to when everything else fails.

 

[BasketCase]

I call "talking in circles". I think this is the third time Greenie and I have been through the same topics.

 

[greenpeace]

Greenpeace, the world is a whole lot bigger than you. If you ever bothered to actually READ other peoples' opinions, you would already know the answer to this. Radical Muslims say you are causing harm because you are not worshipping Allah. Environmentalists say you're causing harm by living in that fancy resource-consuming house and using 400 watts of electricity to run that PC that's allowing you to read this. Some people say DEMOCRACY ITSELF is harmful, and you said yourself that your ideal government REQUIRES democracy.

They don't care if you can't make any sense of their disagreement with your definition of harm--they think you're the one who's not making any sense.



A democracy is simply rule by 51% of the people. The minority are subjected by force to rules they do not want. See? Your system fails AGAIN.

I already said, you can easily disagree that the definition of harm is faulty, but whether or not an action is harmful according to my definition, is not easily disputable. If one disagrees with something as fundamental as the structure itself, then they have little reason to join in the first place.

And I'll say it again: THIS DOES NOT WORK. You cannot run a nation by sending every single government decision to the People for a vote. There are so many decisions to make that the People do not have enough time to make them. It is physically impossible. You have to delegate a significant portion of government decisions to specialists who DO have the time to do nothing else but make these decisions. By all means, the People should vote for those specialists--but it is physically impossible to have direct democracy running everything.

Yet another failure of Greenpeacocracy: repeated attempts to violate the laws of physics.

First of all, this isn't anything like a nation, each community is its own government. Second, your government has much more to decide then the government of my system would, since all a community would have to is decide on whether a person has harmed and what do is if so, and to resolve property issues.

And I already explained that a civilization (that is, one that intends to survive more than three weeks) cannot afford to wait until the need arises before trying to satisfy it. If you have a heart attack, you need medical attention from somebody who is ALREADY a doctor--you need somebody who decided TEN YEARS AGO to be a doctor. You must prepare for emergencies BEFORE they happen.

And you need a way to get enough people to sign up for all the above duties before anything actually goes wrong. Greenpeacocracy has no way to do that because all the possible methods are called harmful. FAIL.

I like your logic, it makes me laugh. I like how you think people will just let their friends, family, and community die off because there isn't any money to motivate them.

"Hey, Bob if we don't start learning basic medical treatement the community people are going to die very young."
"So what Joe?"
"Well, thats a bad thing right?"
"Yeah, so?"
"Well, shouldn't we learn to save our friends in family?"
"Why would I do that, Joe?"
"Good point, Bob."

Yes it did. Capitalism existed before civilization did.

Animals (and primitive humans) controlled territory (either with primitive laws or with the tip of a spear or with bared fangs). Animals trade labor for food; in species that hunt in packs, animals who are unable to hunt (or contribute in some other way) are exiled--usually to die. Guess what that is? That's working for your dinner, mister. Trade and capitalism have existed as long as life has existed--they are the system life defaults to when everything else fails.

Well, if your going to twist the definition of Capitalism so severely (especially the fact that there needs to be an authority to protect property and methods of obtaining property) and ignore the lack of Republic and the differences between humans and other animals then I'll say:
"species that hunt in packs" are a perfect example of my society. They all need food, so they all work together to get that food, and there is nothing other than natural incentive, and if one of them starts to harm other than the community of predators will fight back against the one doing harm if they can.
Even assuming that all there has been throughout human history is Capitalistic Republic, it has no affect whats so ever on whether the system works well or not.

 

[BasketCase]

I already said, you can easily disagree that the definition of harm is faulty, but whether or not an action is harmful according to my definition, is not easily disputable.

I have already pointed out many, many examples, out here in the real world, where people ARE disputing it. So when you say it's not easily disputable, you are flat out wrong.

That's one of the reasons most of your arguments fail. You're all about "people should define harm this way". My arguments are based on what people are doing. I can point to real-world examples to back me up. You can't.

I like your logic, it makes me laugh.

What a coincidence--your posts cause me to crack up too.

I like how you think people will just let their friends, family, and community die off because there isn't any money to motivate them.

No, that's not it. If you have a heart attack, your family, friends, and neighbors will not just "let" you die--the problem is that none of them will know how to save you. I'll bet my next year's paycheck that nobody in your entire family knows how to do an angioplasty. It's likely none of your friends or neighbors know, either.

your government has much more to decide then the government of my system would, since all a community would have to is decide on whether a person has harmed and what do is if so, and to resolve property issues.

Why don't you go look over your local court system and police station, and you'll get a good idea of how much work it takes just to do those two things. There's a good reason we have lawyers AND police officers as separate jobs--because those two jobs are too complicated for one person to do both. And your argument fails. Just doing the stuff you described above still requires a level of specialization that Greenpeacocracy cannot handle. The common citizen cannot administrate law and police work; we need to train specialists to do both of those. Therefore administrating it with direct democracy is not possible.

Well, if your going to twist the definition of Capitalism so severely

I didn't. Capitalism is all about trade. Two parties each have something the other wants (whether goods or labor--doesn't matter). The two parties decide how to exchange the one for the other. Capitalism is a purely economic system, which does not require a Republic. In fact, Capitalism can co-exist with any government, except a few totalitarian states which have imposed artificial controls and destroyed their economies as a result (Burma, for example--see?? I've got real examples). Capitalism existed in the Soviet Union. Howzat for irony?

"species that hunt in packs" are a perfect example of my society. They all need food, so they all work together to get that food, and there is nothing other than natural incentive, and if one of them starts to harm other than the community of predators will fight back against the one doing harm if they can.

I can describe that kind of life with one word:

Hell.
I would refuse to live in that barbaric Purgatory if you stuck a gun in my face and threatened to shoot me. You go right ahead and pull the goddamn trigger.