A question to Communists:
- Thread starter Emperor2
- Start date
- Status
You're getting paid through the use of government services and the nation all around you.
You still own the property, but you own it as a group of people.
This is where everyone gets communism wrong. Voting has nothing to do with communism.
Killing has nothing to do with communism.
Russia has little to do with the communist method.
If you impose a state of authoritarianism, then you are correct. However, why can't I just impose a state of authoritarianism to your capitalism and say (approx.) the same things?
greenpeace
Peacelord
So what? You said:RRRRRRRRRR
Which is worse in that context since it deffenetly needed some examples. However, I'm stating that it doesn't violate the laws of physics for that to occur, therefore it is possible (unless of course its impossible for some completely different reason).
edit:
So that Basketcase won't yell at you:
Pinochet.
BTW defiant, could you please describe what exactly your "brand" of communism
lol: get it "brand" since capitalism uses "brands" alot due to competition but then this is about commu... I really really need to stop making these completely garbage jokes )
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Wrong. When I say you couldn't possibly get your system to work, it is precisely because there ARE no examples. The impossibility of something is proven by the LACK of examples. And you have presented none. Not one single real-world example to back up anything you say.
Prove that people would be willing to do all the necessary stuff in a Greenpeacocracy. Prove that nobody would wish to rig an election in a Greenpeacocracy. Prove that nobody would object to the presence of a Greenpeacocracy in the next town.
I require actual examples. Actual real-world examples. Documented. With links. Nothing else will do.
I have proven your claims impossible with examples that demonstrate the reason why: human behavior. Humans are born with a set of ingrained, hardwired instincts that cannot be changed--and which real-world history shows are contrary to almost everything you claim about humans.
So there. I presented a completely different reason why all your crap is impossible.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Since greenpeace said something about me not yelling at Defiant, might as well have a little fun with him. Here goes:
If you refuse to contribute, said government and the nation around you decides not to share their goodies with you. In short, they basically fire you.
Socialism sounds really nifty and has a lot of pleasant-sounding words in it, but whenever anybody tries to implement it in practice, it ends up being functionally identical to capitalism. Here are some of the reasons:
#1: Socialism is very big on distributing the fruits of production equally. How do you go about that? You can't distribute baby shoes equally to everybody, because then each household would get two and a half pairs of shoes, and also households that don't have any children would get baby shoes they have no use for. People have different needs and wants. Besides, a guy who works at an automobile factory can't be paid in cars--you can't give him one-tenth of a car each week, and he can't bring a front left fender to the grocery store to trade for some bread and steak. So, how do you go about distributing stuff fairly, while allowing people to satisfy their needs and wants as best as possible? You use some kind of intermediary. And there you have it: money. The precise form of money may vary--it may be a "points" system similar to U.S. rationing during World War II, for example. But the basic concept is the same. People do work, you give them money, they spend the money the way they want to.
#2: You can't have the farmers running the military, the soldiers running the hospitals, and the doctors doing the farming. People need to be doing stuff they can actually do competently. That's why you can't have the entire population owning all the factories as one group--because most of them don't know how to run a factory and would manage it into the ground. Everybody needs to specialize. Farmers on the farms, soldiers in the barracks, doctors in the hospital.
#3: Contrary to what greenpeace will tell you, there needs to be some way to get people to do the unpleasant jobs society needs done. Nobody likes being a surgeon, because it takes a LOT of practice to get good at, is disgusting to do, and has an extremely high suicide rate. But we MUST have surgeons. And policemen and garbagemen and teachers and other extremely dangerous professions. How are you gonna get people to do those things? With a bigger paycheck. Either that or a bigger share of society's production. Same idea either way.
Here goes:How is this any different from capitalism? The absence of money? Money is merely an intermediary for said government services.
If you refuse to contribute, said government and the nation around you decides not to share their goodies with you. In short, they basically fire you.
There's a word for such a group of people. That word is "corporation".
Socialism sounds really nifty and has a lot of pleasant-sounding words in it, but whenever anybody tries to implement it in practice, it ends up being functionally identical to capitalism. Here are some of the reasons:
#1: Socialism is very big on distributing the fruits of production equally. How do you go about that? You can't distribute baby shoes equally to everybody, because then each household would get two and a half pairs of shoes, and also households that don't have any children would get baby shoes they have no use for. People have different needs and wants. Besides, a guy who works at an automobile factory can't be paid in cars--you can't give him one-tenth of a car each week, and he can't bring a front left fender to the grocery store to trade for some bread and steak. So, how do you go about distributing stuff fairly, while allowing people to satisfy their needs and wants as best as possible? You use some kind of intermediary. And there you have it: money. The precise form of money may vary--it may be a "points" system similar to U.S. rationing during World War II, for example. But the basic concept is the same. People do work, you give them money, they spend the money the way they want to.
#2: You can't have the farmers running the military, the soldiers running the hospitals, and the doctors doing the farming. People need to be doing stuff they can actually do competently. That's why you can't have the entire population owning all the factories as one group--because most of them don't know how to run a factory and would manage it into the ground. Everybody needs to specialize. Farmers on the farms, soldiers in the barracks, doctors in the hospital.
#3: Contrary to what greenpeace will tell you, there needs to be some way to get people to do the unpleasant jobs society needs done. Nobody likes being a surgeon, because it takes a LOT of practice to get good at, is disgusting to do, and has an extremely high suicide rate. But we MUST have surgeons. And policemen and garbagemen and teachers and other extremely dangerous professions. How are you gonna get people to do those things? With a bigger paycheck. Either that or a bigger share of society's production. Same idea either way.
greenpeace
Peacelord
The American reolution proves that I don't need more examples than I have given you.
There is no proof that people would rather starve and be miserable than the work it would take to do it, and even if they didn't they must think its worth the lack of effort or else they would logically do it (example: the majoirty of people with a job are putting in much more effort than is required to get what they want in return.)
You're system is much more vulnerable, yet you maintain elections. And you do realize that the voting would be more to officialize it in the majority of cases as there would certainly be a rather common consensus among people before voting takes place.
Can't prove that, but I can prove that it is possible by virtue of its existance in that scenario.
Look, there are 155,030 who were born in the US that live in Britain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_Great_Britain,_2001
State one thing about human nature that I am not right about.
edit: although Basketcase may have misunderstood exactly what Defiant really meant by socialism, if is interpretation was correct, then I AGREE WITH BASKETCASE. Because if you are indeed using positive incentives (and especially negative incentives) its all the same thing of forcing people to do what they don't really want to do.
Although I disagree with #3 since if the job is worth the product to the person than there is no need for artifical incentive. For example, you don't need to give garbagemen, since after a while when we have mounds upon mounds of garbage precisely at the point where it becomes worth it to clean it up to the people then they would (and if they don't than its not worth it).
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Eldorado, Texas, just sealed up my case against Greenpeace.
An isolated society that separated itself from the United States. Nobody knew it was there. Well, it just got destroyed.
What definition of "harm" did that society use? Irrelevant. Was it able to provide all necessary goods and services to its people? Irrelevant. Is the U.S. the "complete and total hegemony" greenpeace keeps insisting on? No. Yet the end result is exactly what I predicted; a society of polygamists has been destroyed.
How did it happen? Somebody narked to the police.
That's all it takes to destroy one of these little self-contained havens. One dissatisfied person who rats you out to the authorities of whatever host nation you happen to be living in.
An isolated society that separated itself from the United States. Nobody knew it was there. Well, it just got destroyed.
What definition of "harm" did that society use? Irrelevant. Was it able to provide all necessary goods and services to its people? Irrelevant. Is the U.S. the "complete and total hegemony" greenpeace keeps insisting on? No. Yet the end result is exactly what I predicted; a society of polygamists has been destroyed.
How did it happen? Somebody narked to the police.
That's all it takes to destroy one of these little self-contained havens. One dissatisfied person who rats you out to the authorities of whatever host nation you happen to be living in.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
The American Revolution proves that the UNITED STATES can work. I'm not talking about America, I'm talking about Greenpeacocracy. You have posted absolutely no examples to prove that Greenpeacocracy can work.
DUDE. Can you go TEN LOUSY SECONDS without using "would" or "could"??? No, people don't want to starve and be miserable, but people DO starve and ARE miserable all the time. That is what DOES happen.
Answer the question. Prove that people would be willing to do all the necessary stuff in a Greenpeacocracy.
You didn't answer this question either. Because you can't.BasketCase said:
Then why aren't you actually doing any proving?BasketCase said:
And here's a link that lists 678,000 British-born people who live in the U.S. (Those numbers are over in the right-hand bannerbox, listing British-born folks who live elsewhere on Earth)
You just got trumped.
Anything you type in this thread. You've made a whole bunch of claims about human nature in here, and I proved every claim wrong with ACTUAL EXAMPLES.
Ohhhh.....my.....GOD.
That is abominable. That's one of the most despicable things I've ever seen anybody write on this entire web site. I refuse absolutely, now more than ever, to live in a Greenpeacocracy.
Here's the really scary part: what you just described is already happening in Naples!
And once again BasketCase seals it up with REAL EXAMPLES.
Naples is ALREADY buried under mounds of garbage. The response? The citizens try to STOP the government from opening new dump sites because they don't want to live next to a dump site. Which merely makes the problem worse. People resort to burning the garbage, which is creating a health hazard even worse than the garbage itself. Goes to show why you can't rely on the common citizen to do necessary things--you need to hire people who actually know how to do it.
That boldface part is citizens demanding that somebody else do something. Just as I predicted.
What you don't see is people using their cars to haul away the trash themselves.
gangleri2001
Garbage day!!!
Is this thread still alive?
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Yep. I'm addicted to it. It's like crack to me.
Chandrasekhar
Determined
Hm... I've seen this thread floating on the front page for awhile, but I should actually read the whole thing sometime. It's rare to see anarchism get torn apart so thoroughly. Skillfully done, BasketCase! 
greenpeace
Peacelord
Actually that system still exists (unfortunently) throughout America (according to CNN). Also, aren't you willing to admit that my system is just a tad bit better than theirs, so that it might be a little bit harder to justify mass arrest, since everybody would actually want to be in the society.
Oh, BTW hows terrorism going? Too foreign? How about gangs?
Actually its logically impossible to prove it can work without actually doing it. In fact I'm going to establish right here, right now...
Ok, it has existed. It existed for a nice couple of seconds.
Which is unfortunate since thats completely unnecessary and is a big problem in your type of system. But lets go on...
Because they only do what they think is worth the effort so if they don't do it its not worth the effort and therefore not really neccessary. For example, you may think having a perfectly functioning water system is critical. Well, if nobody cares about having it more than having to not work relentlessly getting it, than to them its not neccessary.
Actually there is one neccesity and that is providing for those who are physically inable which can be incentivised if necessary (however, if a couple of parents are going to give their baby food, they would probably have to be dealt with anyway).
Sure, someone may want to, but it doesn't matter if they can't.greenpeace said:
All I proved in that example was that it can exist (if you think more than that needs to proved why not say so?).
yay, more completely useless information (you realize I was pulling a random fact from the internet right?). And for some unexplicable reason I have an urge to tell you my friends is British (not sure if he is foreign born or just ethinically, but whatever).State some examples.
FAAAAAAbulous!!!
You probably didn't read my post. If you don't think the work is worth it (or just having a logical way of desposing waste), than why would it be neccessary?
Actually that greatly bolsters my point, you see if they don't mind the garbage more than the dumpster, who cares if there is a bunch of garbage (obviously not the citizens?
Also, why do you keep on showing things that have gone wrong with your tye of country (unless Naples is still under the USSR?
)It shows people do exactly what they want to do. Just as I predicted.
Exactly, they find that they are willing to work without incentive to get the trash out of there.
Isn't that post very contradictory?Hm... I've seen this thread floating on the front page for awhile, but I should actually read the whole thing sometime. It's rare to see anarchism get torn apart so thoroughly. Skillfully done, BasketCase!
BasketCase
Username sez it all
NNNOOOOOOO!!!!
RUN. Get out of here. Get the hell away from this thread, it's a CFC disaster area.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
No, your system makes nuclear waste dumps look like prime real estate by comparison.
If everybody wanted to live in your system, they would be building one right now. They are not. The citizens of Naples do not want to live in piles of garbage and are complaining about it constantly. Why are the people of Naples not dealing with their garbage problem? Because they don't know how. They have no idea how to safety transport garbage, or how to safely dispose of it. Because most of them are not garbage collectors, they are dentists and fireman and doctors and police and are already busy doing other things that are necessary to keep societ afloat.
This is not a failure of "my" system, it is a failure of people--and this will happen constantly under your pathetic excuse for a system. That it happened in Naples shows that it can happen even with a strong artificial incentive system. Take that away and replace it with your "natural" incentive, and this kind of thing will happen a lot more often.
I refuse to live under your system because it waits for such abominable conditions to happen in the first place. I intend to live in a system that prevents the garbage from accumulating; that puts out fires before they spread to nearby houses (which ordinary people cannot do); that prevents criminals from running free around the streets (which requires policemen and prisons); that kills terrorists before they manage to blow stuff up in the United States (by the way, CNN reports that a couple hundred terrorist attacks have been attempted against U.S. soil since 9/11--we stopped all of them, so it would appear the War on Terror is going very well, thank you).
And it will be a bigger problem in yours. Less incentive, more problem.
I've been doing that for forty thread pages now. The problem is.....
YOU ARE NOT LISTENING.
Which is one of the most fundamental hallmarks of radical wingnuts. When confronted with crushing mountains of hard proof, their minds slip out of gear and they become incapable of understanding said proof. George Orwell called it "goodthink" in his book 1984: the ability to prevent heretical thoughts from occurring, and automatically not understanding them when someone else presents them to you. A good citizen of Oceania would not be able to understand the sentence "Big Brother is ungood".
greenpeace
Peacelord
My system makes the people the happiest since taking care of garbage required work, and if work is pain then there is a certain amount of pain of work. If this pain is more than taking more care of it, then taking care of it would only be more painful. Chances are though, having tons of garbade pile up is pretty painful and taking care of it probably isn't then chances are garbage would not pile up.
Well if nobody knows how to dispose of garbage than no society can dispose of it.
It will only happen if they want it less than they don't want to spend working on it. In other words if its worth it it will be made.
Only if people have absolutely no sense of consequences. I mean you're stating there has to be a massive fire for people to realize that there needs to be a fire station. Even if that were the case, if everyone is that short-sided than the same can be said for Capitalist society.
Yes because fire fighters, police, and soldiers are risking their lives everyday for the money. And, of course nobody would do anything about garbage if everythings clean because they obviously would think "you know, who cares if I and nobody else doesn't plan on throwing out their garbage, whats the worse that can happen?
Haha, good luck keeping up that for an eternity longer without dieing of the cost (oh wait, some freedoms have already died).
Less incentive=less unwanted work. Less unwanted=more problem? Not really, since as long as the pain of not having something is less than the pain of working for it, then there is less pain.
what? what is it? Radiocative monkeys? Mushrooms? An inability to see that people don't like dieing off in a massive fire? Mushrooms?
I can't tell, because you put 5 friggin dots! No I have to wait forever for the friggin pause. hm.....
Sorry, what did you say? I can'y hear you, can you turn up the volume of your text?
I know those guys totally suck.
1984 is a good book, you should read it sometime.
But by the way I'd love to listen to your crushing mounatins of kryptonite (seriously wouldn't be easier to use paper?) proof as to why I am a radical while supporting the claim that I can not listen to text.
gangleri2001
Garbage day!!!
Close this thread, Please!!
greenpeace
Peacelord
Just click "unsubscribe."
gangleri2001
Garbage day!!!
I'm unsubscribed. I want it to close because it's too long.
greenpeace
Peacelord
Its only too long if it reaches 1000 posts. Then the post monster will cobble it up and we'll start the "Question to Communists II: The endless debate doesn't end."
holy king
Deity
- Status
Similar threads
