Is Communism Right?...

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Easy.

Step 1: Wait until the capitalist system collapses.
Step 2: Wait while everyone does what comes naturally.
Step 3: Keep fascism and capitalism from ever coming back again.

Greed comes natuarally. Some quasi collective abolishment of individuals in society is not what comes natural. I'll have my capitalism, thank you, I don't want a laser surgeon to make the same kind of money as a fry person.

 

[Norseman2]

It has never been put into practice though. Every single "communist" country in the past (and present) I can think of was a dictatorship with one party at the helm.

These countries were/are Leninist dictatorships first and communist states second. I propose a country that is democratic first and communist second. That's a huge difference and it has never been tried before (not to my knowledge anyway).

So it's never been tried before and you're saying that it won't work because slightly similar things have not worked in the past. I call that close-minded.

No country has ever been communist. Not even close. To say that there has been a country that is communist, even communist second, is like saying that there have been mammals that were invertebrates. It's a fundamental contradiction.

At best, all claimed communist countries are socialist. None of the socialist countries have ever made the last step. One ruling class or another has always prevented it. The people will need to see for themselves what capitalism leads to, what it has done, and what it does to them. Only then will any pretense of rulership be shot-down before it has a chance. People are not commodities. We cannot be ruled or owned, unless we allow it to happen. When the communist revolution comes, there will be no rulers, and no slaves. No one will allow it to happen, having seen for themselves the atrocities commited by all ruling classes, including the capitalist bourgeoise, the fascist dictators, and the corrupt politicians.

 

[Trajan12]

I thought this thread was gone.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

At best, all claimed communist countries are socialist. None of the socialist countries have ever made the last step. One ruling class or another has always prevented it. The people will need to see for themselves what capitalism leads to, what it has done, and what it does to them. Only then will any pretense of rulership be shot-down before it has a chance. People are not commodities. We cannot be ruled or owned, unless we allow it to happen. When the communist revolution comes, there will be no rulers, and no slaves. No one will allow it to happen, having seen for themselves the atrocities commited by all ruling classes, including the capitalist bourgeoise, the fascist dictators, and the corrupt politicians.

Capitalism is about economic FREEDOM. Commusnism is anything but that.

And slavery and rulers have nothnig to do with communism, which is merely an economic philosophy, not a social one.

Communism has failed too many times to try it again. I, for one, don't want my economic freedom trampeled on.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I've always wondered why Communist nations insist on being Atheist? I would think that religion would make communism easier to accept, and more likely to succeed.

 

[Norseman2]

Greed comes natuarally.

In a world dominated by people who profit from your greed, that certainly might seem true. They will go to great lengths to convince you that working is good, buying **** you don't need is good, you've lived a good life if you're a rich bastard that screwed every guy on your way to the top. It's backwards and evil, but sure, call it natural. You're raised into the system, so you may as well.

Just bear in mind how unnatural your "nature" is. When your mother needs money for healthcare, will you turn her down so you can be a greedy capitalist? I think not. When your son needs to borrow a wrench to fix his skateboard, will you charge him for its use, so that you can be a greedy capitalist? When you're stuck on a raft with limited food and other survivors, will you hoard it all for yourself, and make the others fight you for it? Greed only comes naturally when it is encouraged by those who profit from it. In all other contexts of life, it is recognized that greed is a great evil, that does harm to others. But, not when your greed serves to fulfill the greed of those who are even greedier than yourself. You are a slave to them.

Did not Jesus say, in Matthew 19:24:

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

But, of course, all of this is meaningless to you. God is dead, morality is dead, and in their place, you have taken up the worship of men as gods. Your own greed is justification for millions of people starving to death.

Some quasi collective abolishment of individuals in society is not what comes natural.

Ah, yes, it's not like you were raised in a family or anything. It's not like you have friends. Or do you, but you just can't admit to yourself that you are a decent human being, capable of compassion towards others?

I'll have my capitalism, thank you, I don't want a laser surgeon to make the same kind of money as a fry person.

Why should either make money? Why should anyone make money?

 

[Norseman2]

Capitalism is about economic FREEDOM. Commusnism is anything but that.

Freedom to harm others is not freedom at all. It's TYRANNY.

And slavery and rulers have nothnig to do with communism, which is merely an economic philosophy, not a social one.

No, socialism is merely an economic philosophy. Communism is an economic and social philsophy. Read Marx before you tell me what communism is and is not.

Communism has failed too many times to try it again.

To my knowledge communism has suceeded every time that it has been tried. Vietnam, Cuba, Soviet Russia, and China have never tried communism. They've tried socialism. The one group I can think of that has tried communism is the Amish, and they've done perfectly well. I disagree with their opposition to technology, but their success cannot be denied.

I, for one, don't want my economic freedom trampeled on.

Your economic freedom? Hah! Unless you own a corporation, your economic freedom is the freedom to be a slave. How much money do you think your work is worth, and how much of that do you think you get paid?

 

[Norseman2]

I've always wondered why Communist nations insist on being Atheist? I would think that religion would make communism easier to accept, and more likely to succeed.

The only communist "nation" is the Amish, so I think you have made an excellent observation here. But, in time, atheists will go communist too. When capitalism fails, it will be inevitable.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

In a world dominated by people who profit from your greed, that certainly might seem true. They will go to great lengths to convince you that working is good, buying **** you don't need is good, you've lived a good life if you're a rich bastard that screwed every guy on your way to the top. It's backwards and evil, but sure, call it natural. You're raised into the system, so you may as well.

I don't buy **** I don't want, I buy what I went, when I want. And being a rich bastard usually means you worked hard, not screw everybody over on the way. To be honest, there is no such thing as "natural" besides us humans. Greed is just a good way to motivate us, and it's worked so far.

Just bear in mind how unnatural your "nature" is. When your mother needs money for healthcare, will you turn her down so you can be a greedy capitalist? I think not. When your son needs to borrow a wrench to fix his skateboard, will you charge him for its use, so that you can be a greedy capitalist? When you're stuck on a raft with limited food and other survivors, will you hoard it all for yourself, and make the others fight you for it? Greed only comes naturally when it is encouraged by those who profit from it. In all other contexts of life, it is recognized that greed is a great evil, that does harm to others. But, not when your greed serves to fulfill the greed of those who are even greedier than yourself. You are a slave to them.

Irrelevant examples, really. A wrench is quite cheap. If I was stuck on a raft, yes, I would fight for it. I want to live.

Did not Jesus say, in Matthew 19:24:

Could care less.

But, of course, all of this is meaningless to you. God is dead, morality is dead, and in their place, you have taken up the worship of men as gods. Your own greed is justification for millions of people starving to death.

Morality is relative, anyways. Poverty and starvation, while tragic, always has existed, and always will.

Ah, yes, it's not like you were raised in a family or anything. It's not like you have friends. Or do you, but you just can't admit to yourself that you are a decent human being, capable of compassion towards others?

Actually, yes. My friends say that I am the nicest person they know. I frequently donate to charity and loan money to friends who need a quick fix. What I don't want is the state telling me how I have to give away my money and when. I like choice, thank you very much.

Why should either make money? Why should anyone make money?

Money is simply a marker. It has no real value. Hell, I would think the communists would like an equal form of currency, instead of bartering. After all, free trade isn't really free, is it?

Freedom to harm others is not freedom at all. It's TYRANNY.

Nope, not harming anyone.

No, socialism is merely an economic philosophy. Communism is an economic and social philsophy. Read Marx before you tell me what communism is and is not.

American Heritage Dictionary:

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

To my knowledge communism has suceeded every time that it has been tried. Vietnam, Cuba, Soviet Russia, and China have never tried communism. They've tried socialism. The one group I can think of that has tried communism is the Amish, and they've done perfectly well. I disagree with their opposition to technology, but their success cannot be denied.

No, they tried communism, some power hungry dictator just took advantage of the opportuniy to grab power.

Your economic freedom? Hah! Unless you own a corporation, your economic freedom is the freedom to be a slave. How much money do you think your work is worth, and how much of that do you think you get paid?

I don't even know what to say to this. I am not even remotely close to a slave.

 

[Norseman2]

I don't buy **** I don't want, I buy what I went, when I want.

Ah, but I asked about buying things you don't need. Is it more important for you to have shiny new dishware, or for a family of 5 to live a few more months? I say again, you have taken up the worship of men as gods. Greed is now more important than people living. Those people, who someday may include you, will come to claim what is theirs, eventually.

And being a rich bastard usually means you worked hard, not screw everybody over on the way.

O rly? I'll ask you again, how much do you get paid, and how much do you think your work is worth? Do you really think you get rich working hard, or do you think you get rich making other people work hard for you?

To be honest, there is no such thing as "natural" besides us humans. Greed is just a good way to motivate us, and it's worked so far.

So did the feudal system. If you gave your lords what they wanted, they wouldn't hurt you. If you pay your debts on time, your bank won't take your house, and if you pay your taxes on time, the government won't take it either. If you don't pay for their protection racket, guess what? No, sure it's a lovely system.

Irrelevant examples, really. A wrench is quite cheap. If I was stuck on a raft, yes, I would fight for it. I want to live.

Oh. I see. Well, let's just hope you never end up as a politician, eh?

Could care less.

Good for you! I take it you're not a Christian then, right?

Morality is relative, anyways.

Relative to what?

Poverty and starvation, while tragic, always has existed, and always will.

Are you aware that the amount of money spent on perfume in France and America would be enough to end starvation? But of course, perfume is more important than the survival of millions of people.

Actually, yes. My friends say that I am the nicest person they know. I frequently donate to charity and loan money to friends who need a quick fix. What I don't want is the state telling me how I have to give away my money and when. I like choice, thank you very much.

Why do you give to charity? As you have said, morality is relative, and obviously, people dying is not more important than greed.

Money is simply a marker. It has no real value. Hell, I would think the communists would like an equal form of currency, instead of bartering. After all, free trade isn't really free, is it?

Why trade? What's wrong with donating help when it is needed, and getting help when you need it?

Nope, not harming anyone.

Except for all but the top 1% wealthiest people in America. By your definition, America should be anarchist. Whoever can establish the best protection racket wins!

American Heritage Dictionary:

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

And right there, it has pointed out the social aspect of it. Communal ownership of property, i.e. communities. It strongly differs from capitalism in an economic aspect, but that doesn't mean it's completely devoid of social aspects.

No, they tried communism, some power hungry dictator just took advantage of the opportuniy to grab power.

Trying communism would preclude the possibility of a dictator taking over. Communism would be inherently opposed to any state or leadership, so any attempt to form a dictatorship among actual communist revolutionaries should fail automatically. What they tried was socialism, and they got socialism. Saying that a communist revolution could be subverted into socialism is like saying that an anarchist revolution could be subverted into green revolution by a green dictator. The anarchists would kill the dictator and that would be that, end of story.

I don't even know what to say to this. I am not even remotely close to a slave.

What happens if you stop working, and you stop giving the bank and the government money?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Ah, but I asked about buying things you don't need. Is it more important for you to have shiny new dishware, or for a family of 5 to live a few more months? I say again, you have taken up the worship of men as gods. Greed is now more important than people living. Those people, who someday may include you, will come to claim what is theirs, eventually.

What if I want the shiny new dishware? What if I like it? American soldiers have paid with blood in order to grant me the freedom to enjoy these things, and to have my country where it is today.

O rly? I'll ask you again, how much do you get paid, and how much do you think your work is worth? Do you really think you get rich working hard, or do you think you get rich making other people work hard for you?

I think my work is really not important in the scheme of things, as such, I am not getting paid a lot. And yes, working hard to get a college education can help. You don't hire people to do your classwork.

Oh. I see. Well, let's just hope you never end up as a politician, eh?

I missed that part where fighting for my survival was wrong.

Good for you! I take it you're not a Christian then, right?

No.

Relative to what?

Different cultures.

Are you aware that the amount of money spent on perfume in France and America would be enough to end starvation? But of course, perfume is more important than the survival of millions of people.

Please, back this up. I find it hard to believe our perfume money could be used to end starvation, which, again, will always exist. I should not lose daily comforts though.

Why do you give to charity? As you have said, morality is relative, and obviously, people dying is not more important than greed.

I give to charity becuase I feel bad for people who are starving, especially children.

Why trade? What's wrong with donating help when it is needed, and getting help when you need it?

In other words, trade.

Except for all but the top 1% wealthiest people in America. By your definition, America should be anarchist. Whoever can establish the best protection racket wins!

Please show me how 99% of the population is getting harm.

And no, anarchy is bad.

And right there, it has pointed out the social aspect of it. Communal ownership of property, i.e. communities. It strongly differs from capitalism in an economic aspect, but that doesn't mean it's completely devoid of social aspects.

Property is an economic feature.

Trying communism would preclude the possibility of a dictator taking over. Communism would be inherently opposed to any state or leadership, so any attempt to form a dictatorship among actual communist revolutionaries should fail automatically. What they tried was socialism, and they got socialism. Saying that a communist revolution could be subverted into socialism is like saying that an anarchist revolution could be subverted into green revolution by a green dictator. The anarchists would kill the dictator and that would be that, end of story.

Communism can't work in this day and age, period.

What happens if you stop working, and you stop giving the bank and the government money?

I die. But if I stop working, I am doing nothing to help others. If I stop paying any taxes, I am eliminating my ability to be protected under the law.

 

[Norseman2]

What if I want the shiny new dishware? What if I like it?

You can want it all you like, but to have it at the expense of a family starving to death is wrong.

American soldiers have paid with blood in order to grant me the freedom to enjoy these things, and to have my country where it is today.

American soldiers have also died to uphold slavery, which, more than anything else, is why your country is where it is today.

I think my work is really not important in the scheme of things, as such, I am not getting paid a lot. And yes, working hard to get a college education can help. You don't hire people to do your classwork.

Okay, so at the moment, who is making more money off of your labor, you, or the guy who employs you but doesn't work?

I missed that part where fighting for my survival was wrong.

Fighting over resources, so that you can live and everyone else dies is wrong. That isn't blatantly obvious to you? Why is your life more important than theirs? Or does might make right?

No.

Atheist then?

Different cultures.

So, two cultures can have two seperate sets of ethical truths and both are correct?

Please, back this up. I find it hard to believe our perfume money could be used to end starvation, which, again, will always exist.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm

It's towards the bottom. They state:

To satisfy the world's sanitation and food requirements would cost only US$13 billion- what the people of the United States and the European Union spend on perfume each year.

I should not lose daily comforts though.

You should be comfortable while others starve? Let's extend the same courtesy to you. Let's have you starve to death while we enjoy ourselves. Clearly human comfort is more important than human life, including yours.

I give to charity becuase I feel bad for people who are starving, especially children.

Guilty conscience?

In other words, trade.

No. Trade implies that there must be a fair exchange. This would be closer to insurance without fees.

Please show me how 99% of the population is getting harm.

1% of the population owns 38% of the wealth. In other words, in our country that is supposedly based upon the equality of men, 1% of the population possesses 38 times their fair share, at the expense of the remaining 99%. 1% is 38 times more equal than you.

And no, anarchy is bad.

Why is anarchy bad? Is it not for the same reasons that capitalism is bad?

Property is an economic feature.

Community. How many times must I say that?

Communism can't work in this day and age, period.

Amish.

I die.

Oh, so you're not a slave. If you stop working, you die.

But if I stop working, I am doing nothing to help others.

Wait, so you're saying that it's justified for you to die if you do nothing to help your common man? Hmm... I'm not that harsh, but it sounds like you're agreeing with me.

If I stop paying any taxes, I am eliminating my ability to be protected under the law.

Will the law leave you alone? Or evict you?

 

[Swedishguy]

Ok, now you have to back that up with some actual facts. That same thing has been brought up before on Apolyton, and no one who said that could give me some actual data.

Please give me some actual reasons to believe that capitalism has killed more people than the communist nations of the 20th century.

That capitalism has existed since about 4000 BC?

 

[Winner]

What?! Do you even know what communism is?

Yes, my country has had the 'pleasure' of experiencing it for 40 years.

Do you?

Communism requires that there be no state. You can't implement communism on a state level. You have to get rid of the state. It enables the existence of the bourgeoise. As long as a state exists, there will be masters and slaves. There can be no free state, so there can be no communist state. That term is an oxymoron. You can point to any state you like. It was not communist. The only practicing communist entity that I know of is the amish.

Without state, there can be no advanced civilisation. So as long as you want to remove state, you de facto say that communism can't work on a higher level and thus you agree with me. Thanks.

Think about the word. Communism. Let's break that down. Community-Ism. Not State-ism, not Fascist-ism, not Feudal-ism, not Slave-ism. Community! No state, whatsoever. The existence of communism is communal. And yes, communities do practice communism. Again, see the Amish. See your own family, even. Do you share a screwdriver, or does someone in your family own it and charge anyone who wants to use it?

Please, don't use the Amish as a fine example - they live in 18th century conditions. Without state, government and capitalism, there can be no industry, no high-tech research or anything that keeps our civilisation going. The world is so densely populated, that communism is simply imposible.

You can live as you want - pack up a bunch of friends and play at communism. But never ever impose that crap on the rest of the society.

They Amish are essentially the early 1900s communism that Marx predicted, where the proletariat acceptance of philosophy brought them freedom. A different kind of communism is coming for the US and the rest of the industrialized world very rapidly. All of the workers are being replaced by machines, so that the bourgeoise can become even richer, and soon, there will be no one who has the money to buy the products. Everyone will be out of a job. When that happens, survival will depend upon the destruction of capitalism, and the communal ownership of the means of production.

Sure

 

[Norseman2]

Yes, my country has had the 'pleasure' of experiencing it for 40 years.

Do you?

Unless your country was taken over by the Amish, I doubt that.

Without state, there can be no advanced civilisation. So as long as you want to remove state, you de facto say that communism can't work on a higher level and thus you agree with me. Thanks.

Define advanced civilization and explain why a state necessary for it.

Please, don't use the Amish as a fine example - they live in 18th century conditions.

Because they don't like technology, not because they are unable to live in 21st century conditions. Bear in mind that the Amish choose to live as they do. They let their children experience what our modern society is like and decide how they want to live. Their very existence is testament to the allure of community and communism, which is so great that they would give up computers and cellphones for it. Now, having communism with cellphones and computers... that's an easy choice.

Without state, government and capitalism, there can be no industry...

Amish barn building anyone?

...no high-tech research or anything that keeps our civilisation going.

Not unless communities supported it. And there's no reason they wouldn't, unless they were technophobes.

The world is so densely populated, that communism is simply imposible.

Um, what? Did you read the rest of this thread? About how people are starving, thanks to the greed of capitalism? I certainly don't see the Amish starving.

You can live as you want - pack up a bunch of friends and play at communism. But never ever impose that crap on the rest of the society.

I find this ironic. Let's try this:

You can live as you want - pack up a bunch of friends and play at capitalism. But never ever impose that crap on the rest of the society.

More ironic, is that your crap comes straight from the dark ages. You're still paying for protection rackets. You're still enabling genocide. The only thing that has changed, is that now, instead of ruling by fear, we rule by fear and the theoretical opportunity to satiate vices. We may as well have a system where you are payed for your labor in by being allowed to rape people. Nothing has changed, except for some fancy new gadgetry. And yet, you assume that socialism is communism, and therefore, capitalism is some great and holy institution that must be protected. But protected from what? How would I cause capitalism to fail? I can't. The only thing that will cause capitalism to fail is when people realize for themselves the horrors it has comitted. In the McCarthy era, there was serious risk of this happening. Now, consumerism has taken over well enough that Marx's philosophy is not dangerous to spread anymore. That's why I wouldn't be arrested today for denouncing capitalism.

Fortunately, I don't even need to denounce capitalism for there to be a communist revolution. Unfortunately, that revolution will happen only after the worst of capitalism has come. Consider, if you will, the development of robotics in the last 20 years or so. Within the next 40 years, it's likely that the human workforce will have been replaced by machines. The result will be the rich getting even richer, and the poor workers becoming unemployed and even poorer. People sell their labor for survival, and these people, without labor, will be unable to survive. The rich will be richer than ever, while the poor will have a hard time finding food. Right there is the spark of a communist revolution. It may not happen then, but every time machines replace human labor it becomes a risk. Eventually, there will be no human labor left, just the unemployed and the employers with no need for employees. A communist revolution then will be inevitable. At some point, capitalism will lead to this. It's unfortunate that survival will probably be the motivator, and not simple recognition of the right thing to do, but both will end the same.

Sure

Yeah, we'll see.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I do not endorse the contents of this thread.

 

[Brighteye]

Soo...
the advocate of communism is attacking capitalism because he says that we're slaves to work, and without working and paying taxes we'd die, or lose everything.

Whereas in communism, of course, everyone can be as lazy as they please? Work is necessary for survival. It always has been, and you can't fault capitalism because of this.

So you think that lazy people at the top are living off your work? Why do you think that the world revolves around work? You object to workers being deprived of the output of their work? And yet you advocate depriving the inventors and company founders being deprived of the outcome of their minds? If I have the sense to invent a new machine or the sense and daring to found a company that serves a good purpose, why should I not receive the rewards, by having a high income from my creation? Why is manual labour the centre of the world and not products of the brain?

Finally, if we all work as a commune, why should difficult, complex work be rewarded as much as dull, easy work? If I manage to create three times as many resources for our commune as someone else, why should we all share so that I receive as much as the lazy idiot?

What has he done that makes him deserve the rewards of my labour? Communism is intrinsically wrong, because it deprives the hard-working, skilfull people of the fruits of their labour.

Hard-core capitalism denies such people the chance to receive the fruits of their labour, if they're born into the wrong family.

Hence I favour socialism, which seems to be something you detest as much as capitalism, which provides a 'safety net' for those who do not start with any benefits, allowing everyone the chance to do well for themselves, if only they'd take it.

 

[JerichoHill]

You think so? Why? Let's see you argue it instead of just dismissing communism out of hand.

I have explained countless times how communism cannot work with man itself. Communism requires its citizens to be without wants (implicit in Marx's writings).

Since man is a creature of wants, it fails right there.

 

[JerichoHill]

Fortunately, I don't even need to denounce capitalism for there to be a communist revolution. Unfortunately, that revolution will happen only after the worst of capitalism has come. (BLAH BLAH)
Yeah, we'll see.

Communists have been saying capitalism is always just about to fall and then we will see. But thats just doomsaying.

If communism is SO good, then how come 99.9% of anyone that studies economics laughs at it?

 

[Winner]

Unless your country was taken over by the Amish, I doubt that.

Define advanced civilization and explain why a state necessary for it.

Because they don't like technology, not because they are unable to live in 21st century conditions. Bear in mind that the Amish choose to live as they do. They let their children experience what our modern society is like and decide how they want to live. Their very existence is testament to the allure of community and communism, which is so great that they would give up computers and cellphones for it. Now, having communism with cellphones and computers... that's an easy choice.

Amish barn building anyone?

Not unless communities supported it. And there's no reason they wouldn't, unless they were technophobes.

Um, what? Did you read the rest of this thread? About how people are starving, thanks to the greed of capitalism? I certainly don't see the Amish starving.

I find this ironic. Let's try this:

More ironic, is that your crap comes straight from the dark ages. You're still paying for protection rackets. You're still enabling genocide. The only thing that has changed, is that now, instead of ruling by fear, we rule by fear and the theoretical opportunity to satiate vices. We may as well have a system where you are payed for your labor in by being allowed to rape people. Nothing has changed, except for some fancy new gadgetry. And yet, you assume that socialism is communism, and therefore, capitalism is some great and holy institution that must be protected. But protected from what? How would I cause capitalism to fail? I can't. The only thing that will cause capitalism to fail is when people realize for themselves the horrors it has comitted. In the McCarthy era, there was serious risk of this happening. Now, consumerism has taken over well enough that Marx's philosophy is not dangerous to spread anymore. That's why I wouldn't be arrested today for denouncing capitalism.

Fortunately, I don't even need to denounce capitalism for there to be a communist revolution. Unfortunately, that revolution will happen only after the worst of capitalism has come. Consider, if you will, the development of robotics in the last 20 years or so. Within the next 40 years, it's likely that the human workforce will have been replaced by machines. The result will be the rich getting even richer, and the poor workers becoming unemployed and even poorer. People sell their labor for survival, and these people, without labor, will be unable to survive. The rich will be richer than ever, while the poor will have a hard time finding food. Right there is the spark of a communist revolution. It may not happen then, but every time machines replace human labor it becomes a risk. Eventually, there will be no human labor left, just the unemployed and the employers with no need for employees. A communist revolution then will be inevitable. At some point, capitalism will lead to this. It's unfortunate that survival will probably be the motivator, and not simple recognition of the right thing to do, but both will end the same.

Yeah, we'll see.

Why do I bother? It's like talking out faith from a believer