Communism III

[Graeme the mad]

'You restrict it to countries and their laws, while I think it's a global system. If we don't agree on that there's no point in debating details.'

Neither me nor greadius says it isn't global however as I have pointed out before it is because poor countries do not use capitalism that they are poor.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
'You restrict it to countries and their laws, while I think it's a global system. If we don't agree on that there's no point in debating details.'

Neither me nor greadius says it isn't global however as I have pointed out before it is because poor countries do not use capitalism that they are poor.

I do not understand how you can say that these 'poor' countries do not use capatilism, when the worlds economic superpowers such as the USA directly affect the forunes of these countries fortunes. Surely they are at least under the direct infulence of Capatilism?

it is the nature of capatilism for the richer countries to keep the poor ones poor, which in my view tehy are doing.

 

[Graeme the mad]

'it is the nature of capatilism for the richer countries to keep the poor ones poor, which in my view tehy are doing.'

How are they doing it?? (not rhetoricaL)

Yes Comrade they are under the influence of capitalism - capitalism (and when I say this I mean the cpaitalism with state controls which we have which I know is not really cpaitalism but I have trouble thinking of a word for it) is using them because they have such poor economies. The reasons they have this is - too much state control over production
large monoplies by foreign/home based firms and which can and should be broken down by the state - new firms should also be encouraged which they are not
No social security of any kind so people will work for anything
Little democratic set up, instability which means thigns can not be produced

 

[Pongui]

Fez_MOnk:
"I consider forced taxation and re-distribution of wealth force.

I think it is force when politicians, elected or not, take the money that I have earned, and re-distribute it, or waste it on some stupid program that I want no part of, or use my money to help the FBI spy on my internet use.

I don't want communism. Its not because I'm a backwards conservative(I'm not saying conservatives are backwards) who wants to keep the status quo. I just want to be free. Depending on the State for food, health care, education, entertainment etc. is not free IMHO. I don't want communism and I don't want capitalism. I want libertarian socialism."

I tend to trust my government, because it was somewhat fairly elected, and is somewhat accountable. I don't trust private organizations or employers to look out for the public good, and I think that trusting a free market would be poverty and death to a good many people. When my government tells me to chip in X% of my income, I find that infinately preferable to giving an employer X% of my work (to make his work of employing me worthwhile!). Most of the money goes back to Average Joe and Poor Joe Canadian, and doesn't just snake its way out of knowledge. In my simple opinion, increased taxation is the way to go for any democratic country where citizens have good control of government. Perhaps this is a weird argument because it is not a selfish argument. We tax heavily in Canada, by world standards, but I won't be content until I'm paying 100% income tax. Then I'll vote and respond to referenda, thus controlling that money!

 

[Graeme the mad]

' I don't trust private organizations or employers to look out for the public good'

In a cpaitalism it is people who decide what is made (as long as there is enoguh firms) - not the firms. You trust the government that was electd but every time you buy something your saying I want this company to make this stuff

 

[Pongui]

Question: If you live in a true democracy, then why not trust all wealth to the elected representatives (the public)?

If your government cannot represent the people well, then of course it would be foolish to trust it with your wealth.

Perhaps the greatest argument against communism is really an argument against democracy.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Graeme the Mad
In a cpaitalism it is people who decide what is made (as long as there is enoguh firms) - not the firms. You trust the government that was electd but every time you buy something your saying I want this company to make this stuff

That's an idealistic view. In reality it is indeed the firms who decide it. Either they have a monopoly or quasi-monopoly (like Microsoft) or they bombard people with advertisement until they buy it.
Another thing is fashion. Often those who decide seem to lack the creativity to effectively use it.
And then think of things like fuel. Most people buy the cheapest fuel, but as the (very few) companies are arranging the prices that doesn't help much. And where's the people in there?

Neither me nor greadius says it isn't global

Greadius did actually:
"I don't see why you maintain the illusion that American wealth is the result of some sort of global system"

The funny thing about this is that you (in contrast to Greadius) don't even seem to advocate real Capitalism. You rather seem to be in favour of a regulated Capitalism, which sounds much more like a Social Democrat/Labour thing.

 

[Graeme the mad]

'Question: If you live in a true democracy, then why not trust all wealth to the elected representatives (the public)?

If your government cannot represent the people well, then of course it would be foolish to trust it with your wealth.'

This is a main argument against communism - because the wealth requires labour to exist in any useful form. IF the government has to divide it people have no reason to work so they dont or dont work as hard so their is less welath overall

 

[Socialist Pig]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


So does Communism.

You've got two classes. Poor people that work for the government. Poorer people that don't.

No. Under a communism the state will no longer become needed and die thereby creating total equality. And besides under communism there is no private property so how can any body be rich or poorer when everybody owns everthing communally.

 

[Graeme the mad]

'No. Under a communism the state will no longer become needed and die thereby creating total equality. And besides under communism there is no private property so how can any body be rich or poorer when everybody owns everthing communally.'

But people will not produce things - there is no incentive to work that can be seen easily

And if all buildings belong to everyone what happens when someone moves into a building and lives there and then someone else wants to

 

[Socialist Pig]

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
'No. Under a communism the state will no longer become needed and die thereby creating total equality. And besides under communism there is no private property so how can any body be rich or poorer when everybody owns everthing communally.'

But people will not produce things - there is no incentive to work that can be seen easily

And if all buildings belong to everyone what happens when someone moves into a building and lives there and then someone else wants to

People produce things to benfit the community and bettering the community only serves to benifit all with in it.

And why would they want to live there? Could you give me a reason?

 

[ComradeDavo]

How are they doing it??

tarrifs...monoplisation...enforced trade agreements......I am quite surprised by your ignorance here (i'm not being insulting, I am actually really surprised you asked that! )

Perhaps the greatest argument against communism is really an argument against democracy.

true, soem people claim to support 'democracy' but at any mention of equality they dismiss it as communist ramblings

 

[Fez_Monk]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Fez_MOnk:
"I consider forced taxation and re-distribution of wealth force.

I think it is force when politicians, elected or not, take the money that I have earned, and re-distribute it, or waste it on some stupid program that I want no part of, or use my money to help the FBI spy on my internet use.

I don't want communism. Its not because I'm a backwards conservative(I'm not saying conservatives are backwards) who wants to keep the status quo. I just want to be free. Depending on the State for food, health care, education, entertainment etc. is not free IMHO. I don't want communism and I don't want capitalism. I want libertarian socialism."

I tend to trust my government, because it was somewhat fairly elected, and is somewhat accountable. I don't trust private organizations or employers to look out for the public good, and I think that trusting a free market would be poverty and death to a good many people. When my government tells me to chip in X% of my income, I find that infinately preferable to giving an employer X% of my work (to make his work of employing me worthwhile!). Most of the money goes back to Average Joe and Poor Joe Canadian, and doesn't just snake its way out of knowledge. In my simple opinion, increased taxation is the way to go for any democratic country where citizens have good control of government. Perhaps this is a weird argument because it is not a selfish argument. We tax heavily in Canada, by world standards, but I won't be content until I'm paying 100% income tax. Then I'll vote and respond to referenda, thus controlling that money!

To me, taxation is still theft, just as interest is theft. I have no problem with people giving money to charity or helping the poor, but forcibly stealing money to give to others cannot be justified IMHO. You say you don't trust private organizations(I assume you mean capitalist firms). Neither do I. But I see government as just another organization, another association, which is generally managed worse than other associations. So, naturally, I don't trust it either.

What I'm saying, is if government support of capitalism and monopolies(such as monopolies on money, land, tarrifs etc.) were removed, then we would no longer see such huge gaps between rich and poor.

 

[Graeme the mad]

'tarrifs...monoplisation...enforced trade agreements'

This does not help corrupt regime's survive and neither does it stop these governments from interfering with their monopolies (which I am all for - you have noticed most people would probably call me slightly left wing), the governments however lack the will to do so and will not introduce social reforms (yes i do bang on about it)

'People produce things to benfit the community and bettering the community only serves to benifit all with in it.'

But people dont see it like this - some people at least wont work with the attitude, everyone else can do it for me why do I need to bother? - I think this will be lots of people.
What ae the incentives for peopel to work longer hours or for methods of production to be better - they do not exist, people will not look for them.

'And why would they want to live there? Could you give me a reason'

I was pointing to the general problem with all buildings being state owned - people must live somewhere, if that building is state owned whats to stop otherpeople using it?

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Fez_Monk
To me, taxation is still theft, just as interest is theft.

And you called yourself a libertarian Socialist ?
As someone regularly placed at that by these nice politics test I wonder how that makes sense, considering the answers I gave to the questions.

 

[Fez_Monk]

Originally posted by Hitro

And you called yourself a libertarian Socialist ?
As someone regularly placed at that by these nice politics test I wonder how that makes sense, considering the answers I gave to the questions.

Hey, it all depends on your definition of socialism. I desire a free and egalitarian society; Communists and I both have different means of achieving it.

Anarchists used to call themselves libertarians, then capitalists took that word, and then we called ourselves libertarian socialists, and now social democrats took that one too!
You guys took our words and we would really like them back.

 

[Damien]

Duh?Lands should belong to the state.Fez,What u've just said is like a slaver sayin "i bought those slaves;what allows u to freed those slaves,they're mine.Abolition is theft"It's true,the slaver bought em.If he can't buy more slaves,it's another stuff but at least he should be able to keep his slaves or to sell em to abolitionists or the state in order to freed em,right?

 

[Fez_Monk]

WTH are you talking about Damien? Your equating me with a slaver? Slavery violates the sovereignty of the individual. Why would I support it?

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Fez_Monk
Hey, it all depends on your definition of socialism.

You're right about that.
But Socialism is an economic theory based on the more or less equal distribution of wealth. The different branches of it (Social Democrats, Dem. Socialists, Communists, etc.) differ on how equal that should be and how it should be archieved. But Socialism never advocates a completely free market.

I guess you know about the two-dimensional political landscape with the distinction between social and economic issues. Now what you advocate is mostly called Libertarianism (I agree that the use of all these words has not been consistent). You want as much freedom as possible on both kinds of issues.
I however, besides being practically a cynic who doesn't mind, am in theory in favour of as much social freedom as possible combined with a decent amount of state control over the economy.
Per definition that is a combination of Libertarianism on social issues and Socialism on economics. Therefore Libertarian Socialism. It makes much more sense than calling you that, as equality alone doesn't mean Socialism and vice versa.

 

[Damien]

I'm not sayin ur a slaver.The fact is that after revolutions,money wasn't reset equally(at least it'd hav been better as well).B4 revolutions in Europe,lands were held by lords allowin the peasants to work on his fields as long as they paid taxes.I really wonder how lands were then shared after revolutions.Lands had to belong to the state(representing the people).U said that re-distribution was theft.I say:it's as if a slaver would say that abolitionists don't have to freed his slaves;he bought em and it was legal at that time.I wanted to stress on the illogical logic