About politics (Honor)

[Honor]

Guess i was more awake than i thaught, i slipped you a primed grenade and i missed it. thanks for pulling the pin

The short answer to the whole post is "Bullshit." No further elocution is really needed. Taping a pin to a sad little rock doesn't make it a grenade, dear.

First, you seem to be making the same mistake as John... Confusing corporations with capitalism... Which is semantically equal to saying voters are democracy, or the proles are communism.

Capitalism is the idea that trade and industry should be privately owned. All this crap about whether or not some or all corporations are being nice to people isn't even secondary to that discussion... It's a seperate discussion altogether...

And the only realistic, reasonable answer is the one I already gave.

Governments and laws exist to ensure that people, real and artificial, behave in the way they ought to behave. If they don't behave thusly, then you can blame those individual entities, or you can blame the governments that aren't doing their jobs, or you can blame both...

But what you're doing is saying that the very idea of corporations - or, more accurately, of privately owned business - is in and of itself responsible for these shortcomings and therefore evil.

Which is bullshit.

[Swordsman3003]

The communist/revolutionary thing, for all I know, the definition I know is that Communist is someone who attempts to create utopia (Communism, stateless world, complete collectivism, no authority) through revolutionary process, which would first go through socialism. Anarchist attempt to get to the utopia straight away, without the socialism-phase.

Social Democrats rely on non-violent measures, through elections, and only crave to get to the socialism.

I don't think you should qualify communism as utopia. I can't picture a world without authority that I would like to live in unless I was the only person in it.

What I mean to say is that while we are using mostly subjective terms, and I think Utopia is too much a word dependant on opinion.

If anarchy was such a peaceful, and useful state, then why would people try to form governments in the first place? Nearly every society forms rule of law, which requires a government to enforce.

Anyways, on communism:

Isn't a good one-sentence definition of a communist state in practice pretty close to "government control of all resources?" Afterwards, the government does what it sees fit.

Communists (or Pro-Communistic States, whatever the hell you want) tend to go on about "ideal" communism, because "stifling individual creativity and innovation" isn't in Marx's manifesto, but are very quick to point out specific flaws that exists is the current incarnation of capitalism.

There is nothing "inherently evil" or whatever about either system. It's about what works for society.

[Indigo Violent]

Isn't a good one-sentence definition of a communist state in practice pretty close to "government control of all resources?" Afterwards, the government does what it sees fit.

In the ideal communist system, there is no distinction between "the government" and "the people". Everything belongs to everyone, after a fashion.

[Swordsman3003]

Isn't a good one-sentence definition of a communist state in practice pretty close to "government control of all resources?" Afterwards, the government does what it sees fit.

In the ideal communist system, there is no distinction between "the government" and "the people". Everything belongs to everyone, after a fashion.

And "the people" are represented by "the government."

[Honor]

Isn't a good one-sentence definition of a communist state in practice pretty close to "government control of all resources?" Afterwards, the government does what it sees fit.

In the ideal communist system, there is no distinction between "the government" and "the people". Everything belongs to everyone, after a fashion.

In the practical communist system, however, the distinction is fairly easy to discern... The government are the ones with the guns.

[Rand Al'tor]

Despite wearing my political preferences on my sleeves, I've been reluctant to get involved. Felt I had the discussion plenty of times but... heck, let's go again.

(random side-note, this is no slight on Honor, who is an intelligent person and didn't ask for it, but must people always tell those who go in argument against her that they're gonna get their asses whooped ,are foolhardy, etc. etc.? I like matching wits as equals, and whenever everyone is telling me my opponent is superior...)

So... communism...

First order of business... I consider it an ideal, a utopia, something to strive for, something we may one day attain, but probably not in its lifetime, though we can make serious headway, and thus make a more free world. But suppose some twist of faith puts me at the one writing up the constitution of 'The United Nations of Earth' tomorrow, I wouldn't immediately try for the 'full score'.

The ideal? All means of production owned by the people. Lands, factories, machines, etc. Possibly, the people will own this through a government, however, and this is important said government MUST be something in the hands of the people If a government owning those means of production ends up controlled by an elite, then you don't have communism, because the means of production are owned by that elite, and not the people. See the degenerated SU, see PRC, see Cuba even. Call those states capitalist, fascist... call them cupcake for all I care... not communist. No matter what they call themselves.

[Honor]

I'm with you on the first part... While I'm darn sure going to try to make sure any debate I'm involved in and interested in is strenuous and thorough, I certainly don't think it's a suicide mission...

The reason this forum is so much fun is because there are so unusually many intelligent, thoughtful (real definition, not the modern co-opted touchy-feely Hallmark one) open-minded people here. Going up against any number of our forumites, from Unka G on down, is a formiddable and vastly rewarding undertaking...

Now, imagine if we all descended, en masse, on other forums in moments of meaningful debate...


Now... To lend some more discussion to your communist ideal... (which, incidentally, I don't think is possilbe, so long as humans are recognizable as the same h. sapiens sapiens who walk the earth today...)

Where in this system is the room for innovation? Where is the opportunity to excel? What chance does anyone have, once we're all equal, to work hard and make a better life for themselves?

I know... They make a better life for themselves, by definition, by making life better for everyone. But how hard are you going to work to improve your lot in life when the rewards for that work are evenly spread amoung everyone on the planet?

If I could, in theory, work so hard that I increased my output to a real economic value of ten billion dollars a year, then, in your system, my net reward would be $1.43 per annum, and a warm feeling.

This is why history has shown, again and again, that when faced with a communist system larger than an extended family unit, people tend to work only as hard as they absolutely need to to get by.

And what about innovation...? If all the resources are co-owned by everyone equally, and Bob has a new idea that everyone else thinks is stupid, Bob never gets to try his idea. What if his idea was computers or stem cell research or some new desalinization technology? Not all brilliant ideas are immediately evident as brilliant to everyone... In fact, it could be argued that most are not, or they would have been adopted much sooner.


In order for any system to truely resemble a utopia for real humans, there has to be built in an opportunity to excel. There has to be a motivation to take risks and strive and succeed (or fail, learn from those failures, and try again). This is why I think a capitalist system, with strong, fair regulation, and humane social services is the best bet...

Health care and education and a socially guaranteed assurance of basic human welfare would provide everyone with the bootstraps to pull themselves up by, but they must be given the opportunity and motivation to then do so.

I think we should be much more aggressive in the taxation of inheritance and estate, for instance... It's fair, after a successful life or hard work, to expect to be able to leave your family (or, for that matter, anyone you choose) a considerable advantage... But a very large portion of what you earn in a lifetime could be fairly expected to go to benefit the society that allowed you the opportunity to succeed in the first place.

Perhaps we could say that, for every dollar left to an individual, a dollar must also be left to infrastructure, grants, foundations, ecological renewal, and so on... But I can easily think of ways to abuse a system like that.

Well... I left my kids each a million dollars. Then, they each got a $500,000 scholarship from my "leaders of the future" scholarship fund, then, they each got a $500,000 grant from my "business opportunities for gifted children" foundation, then...

Logical and compassionate exceptions would have to be figured out for assets like family businesses, farms, and so on... And this provides just one more opportunity for abuse of the system.

In other words... I agree that we need to do a much better job of re-distributing wealth and opportunity, but I don't agree that turning all opportunity into true community property is a valid or workable solution.

[Rand Al'tor]

Now... To lend some more discussion to your communist ideal... (which, incidentally, I don't think is possilbe, so long as humans are recognizable as the same h. sapiens sapiens who walk the earth today...)

Where in this system is the room for innovation? Where is the opportunity to excel? What chance does anyone have, once we're all equal, to work hard and make a better life for themselves?

I know... They make a better life for themselves, by definition, by making life better for everyone. But how hard are you going to work to improve your lot in life when the rewards for that work are evenly spread amoung everyone on the planet?

If I could, in theory, work so hard that I increased my output to a real economic value of ten billion dollars a year, then, in your system, my net reward would be $1.43 per annum, and a warm feeling.

One thing to consider is that one of the 'advantadges' of working hard in commieland is the fact that commieland works. The thought that the fact that you know that you and all your loved ones will never be in a 'work or starve' situation, is a result of the fact that he's there working to make it work.

There's also ways to improve life that have little to do with 'bigger house, more power, etc.) There's pride, there's reputation, there's enjoying the job you do, there's competing with others to be the best at things, for nothing but knowing you are the best.

This is why history has shown, again and again, that when faced with a communist system larger than an extended family unit, people tend to work only as hard as they absolutely need to to get by.

Regretable. Which is why communism hasn't worked. If it was EASY we'd have done it right already, wouldn't we?

Personally, I hold out hope. What we'll need is tech improvements that reduce the amount of work needed, so society will be able to function supported by nothing but the effort people give without direct gain. (because I have to admit, if I were in a commie society, I wouldn't go and pick up the trash every day because it needs doing and I'm a good commie. And I don't expect a lot of people would, so we need ways to remove those tasks)

For now, I just like to 'evolve' in that direction. Every time a democratic government taxes take more from the higher income, and uses it to provide services to all people, or gives it to lower incomes and strengthens their economic position, I consider that a small step on a long road.

And what about innovation...? If all the resources are co-owned by everyone equally, and Bob has a new idea that everyone else thinks is stupid, Bob never gets to try his idea. What if his idea was computers or stem cell research or some new desalinization technology? Not all brilliant ideas are immediately evident as brilliant to everyone... In fact, it could be argued that most are not, or they would have been adopted much sooner.

Good point. This depends of course that smart people will say 'okay, we're gonna have to gamble some resources on progress now and then. Nine times out of ten, it'll be bullshit, but we won't get the gold without accepting the shit, so let us please approve funding these experiments' and that the less smart people are smart enough to at least trust the smart people enough.

In order for any system to truely resemble a utopia for real humans, there has to be built in an opportunity to excel. There has to be a motivation to take risks and strive and succeed (or fail, learn from those failures, and try again). This is why I think a capitalist system, with strong, fair regulation, and humane social services is the best bet...

Well, see above about other ways to excel. Honour, pride, glory. In commieland, you CAN sit on your ass all day and let others do the work, and you won't hunger for it, or become homeless, or whatever. But you might just earn scorn. And the one who really put his back into it might not get a bigger house, better food, a better life for his children... but people will know.

Health care and education and a socially guaranteed assurance of basic human welfare would provide everyone with the bootstraps to pull themselves up by, but they must be given the opportunity and motivation to then do so

I think we should be much more aggressive in the taxation of inheritance and estate, for instance... It's fair, after a successful life or hard work, to expect to be able to leave your family (or, for that matter, anyone you choose) a considerable advantage... But a very large portion of what you earn in a lifetime could be fairly expected to go to benefit the society that allowed you the opportunity to succeed in the first place.
Perhaps we could say that, for every dollar left to an individual, a dollar must also be left to infrastructure, grants, foundations, ecological renewal, and so on... But I can easily think of ways to abuse a system like that.

Well... I left my kids each a million dollars. Then, they each got a $500,000 scholarship from my "leaders of the future" scholarship fund, then, they each got a $500,000 grant from my "business opportunities for gifted children" foundation, then...

Logical and compassionate exceptions would have to be figured out for assets like family businesses, farms, and so on... And this provides just one more opportunity for abuse of the system.

In other words... I agree that we need to do a much better job of re-distributing wealth and opportunity, but I don't agree that turning all opportunity into true community property is a valid or workable solution.

In the short term... and in the forseeable future... no. But what can I say, humanity has surprised itself before.

As for the inhertance tax? I'm all in favour of just taxing the bejeezes out of it.

[Putaro]

The ideal? All means of production owned by the people. Lands, factories, machines, etc.

That's not an ideal. It's a means to an end. It's kind of like saying "I wish everyone was a Republican". What's the point? What do you think would be better under this system? How would it be better?

[Honor]

One thing to consider is that one of the 'advantadges' of working hard in commieland is the fact that commieland works. The thought that the fact that you know that you and all your loved ones will never be in a 'work or starve' situation, is a result of the fact that he's there working to make it work.

There's also ways to improve life that have little to do with 'bigger house, more power, etc.) There's pride, there's reputation, there's enjoying the job you do, there's competing with others to be the best at things, for nothing but knowing you are the best.

Exactly... Or, in other words, $1.43 per annum, and a nice, warm feeling inside. Or, at best, all the other animals saying nice things about how hard a worker Boxer is.

People work because people want. You work harder for a nice outfit, or the latest gadget, or a bigger TV, or a comfortable chair, or a longer vacation, or a juicy steak, or a faster car.

There will always be those who will work harder for the respect and admiration of their peers, but I think it will always be too short a list.

[Rand Al'tor]

The ideal? All means of production owned by the people. Lands, factories, machines, etc.

That's not an ideal. It's a means to an end. It's kind of like saying "I wish everyone was a Republican". What's the point? What do you think would be better under this system? How would it be better?

Oh yeah... I didn't quite get into detail on that, did I?

Freedom.

Basically, when someone is pressed into doing something, his freedom is compromized. When someone is doing a job he hates just to feed his kids, he is unfree. When someone with a gazzilion bucks can offer a simple man to let him sleep with his wife for a million bucks, and the man considers it because of the fear that one day he might need that money, people are unfree. Those that have the means of production (land, money, etc) have power over those who have none, or less. Those are unfree.

When everyone will know, that no matter what they choose to do, what they say and whom they piss off, they will not eat less, live in a worse house, have worse medical tratment, get less education for their children or even get less of a nice holiday... then, there'll be freedom.

[Rand Al'tor]

One thing to consider is that one of the 'advantadges' of working hard in commieland is the fact that commieland works. The thought that the fact that you know that you and all your loved ones will never be in a 'work or starve' situation, is a result of the fact that he's there working to make it work.

There's also ways to improve life that have little to do with 'bigger house, more power, etc.) There's pride, there's reputation, there's enjoying the job you do, there's competing with others to be the best at things, for nothing but knowing you are the best.

Exactly... Or, in other words, $1.43 per annum, and a nice, warm feeling inside. Or, at best, all the other animals saying nice things about how hard a worker Boxer is.

People work because people want. You work harder for a nice outfit, or the latest gadget, or a bigger TV, or a comfortable chair, or a longer vacation, or a juicy steak, or a faster car.

There will always be those who will work harder for the respect and admiration of their peers, but I think it will always be too short a list.

Perhaps... on the other hand, people have done some extreme things for a warm feeling inside, killed and died for it. Perhaps one day they'll live for it.

Also, as technology evolves, the amount of 'Boxers' we need might be reduced. (Of course, if the human population keeps booming like it does, that does neutralize the effects a bit)

[Putaro]

Freedom.

OK, that's a good goal

Basically, when someone is pressed into doing something, his freedom is compromized.

I'll go along with you on this...

When someone is doing a job he hates just to feed his kids, he is unfree.

OK, so who's going to clean the toilets in commieland and why? Who's going to be working in the fields with a short hoe so that we can all eat and why? There's a mess of jobs that almost everyone hates to do that are only palatable because you get paid to do them.

When someone with a gazzilion bucks can offer a simple man to let him sleep with his wife for a million bucks, and the man considers it because of the fear that one day he might need that money, people are unfree.

I think that one only happens in the movies.

Those that have the means of production (land, money, etc) have power over those who have none, or less. Those are unfree.

Unless resource are infinite there will still need to be some way to allocate them. Current "communist" (or shall we say "pseudo-communist"?) countries have done this via bureaucracies. Even if you were to do away with the bureaucracies and allocate resources through some kind of voting process, do you really want the kind of people who elected George Bush to control everything about your life?

When everyone will know, that no matter what they choose to do, what they say and whom they piss off, they will not eat less, live in a worse house, have worse medical tratment, get less education for their children or even get less of a nice holiday... then, there'll be freedom.

The only way that's going to happen is for everything to get a lot cheaper. Some things I think are possible, like truly affordable health care, but other things are just based on scarce resources and you need some way to allocate them.

Personally, my definition of freedom is being able to do what I want without other people telling me otherwise. In this world the best way I've found is to make more money. I've been beholden to those with the means of production (venture capitalists) and I didn't enjoy it that much. Having to deal with bureaucrats or my neighbors in order to get anything done is even less appealing.

[Rand Al'tor]

When someone is doing a job he hates just to feed his kids, he is unfree.

OK, so who's going to clean the toilets in commieland and why? Who's going to be working in the fields with a short hoe so that we can all eat and why? There's a mess of jobs that almost everyone hates to do that are only palatable because you get paid to do them.

Yep, as I told Honour, there's a REASON why communism hasn't worked yet. But maybe we'll get robots or other fun stuff eliminating the toilet cleaning duties in the future, until the less interesting jobs are so palpatable that they can be performed by people willing to 'do what must be done'

When someone with a gazzilion bucks can offer a simple man to let him sleep with his wife for a million bucks, and the man considers it because of the fear that one day he might need that money, people are unfree.

I think that one only happens in the movies.

Example taken from movies. However, he CAN do that, or press people in doing other things with his wealth.

Those that have the means of production (land, money, etc) have power over those who have none, or less. Those are unfree.

Unless resource are infinite there will still need to be some way to allocate them. Current "communist" (or shall we say "pseudo-communist"?) countries have done this via bureaucracies. Even if you were to do away with the bureaucracies and allocate resources through some kind of voting process, do you really want the kind of people who elected George Bush to control everything about your life?

Not everything, just the allocating of the people's resources according to need. A true communist government shoould be limited by a constitution regarding free speach, religion, etc. just as much as the current ones. In fact, I wouldn't want the communist government to be powerful. Too much power there would lead to the formation of an elite controlling the means of production, messing up the whole concept. So no huge red army, no secret police, etc. etc. And if the people vote to take a step back towards capitalism, you do that.

[uote]
When everyone will know, that no matter what they choose to do, what they say and whom they piss off, they will not eat less, live in a worse house, have worse medical tratment, get less education for their children or even get less of a nice holiday... then, there'll be freedom.

The only way that's going to happen is for everything to get a lot cheaper. Some things I think are possible, like truly affordable health care, but other things are just based on scarce resources and you need some way to allocate them.

Yep, and share and share alike seems to be better, instead of a free for all, see who can get the most.

Personally, my definition of freedom is being able to do what I want without other people telling me otherwise. In this world the best way I've found is to make more money. I've been beholden to those with the means of production (venture capitalists) and I didn't enjoy it that much. Having to deal with bureaucrats or my neighbors in order to get anything done is even less appealing.

And in Commieland, you'd be able to do that. You want to dedicate your life to drawing tentacle sex comics? That is your choice, and no landlord, credit company guy or employer exists to tell you you can't.

What you can't get is getting more than your share at the expense of others.

[Putaro]

Yep, as I told Honour, there's a REASON why communism hasn't worked yet. But maybe we'll get robots or other fun stuff eliminating the toilet cleaning duties in the future, until the less interesting jobs are so palpatable that they can be performed by people willing to 'do what must be done'

If we got robots doing all the uninteresting and nasty jobs and everything is cheap, I think the system becomes POST capitalist or communist. If we're all rich does it matter that some people are a little more rich?

Unless resource are infinite there will still need to be some way to allocate them. Current "communist" (or shall we say "pseudo-communist"?) countries have done this via bureaucracies.

Not everything, just the allocating of the people's resources according to need. A true communist government shoould be limited by a constitution regarding free speach, religion, etc. just as much as the current ones. In fact, I wouldn't want the communist government to be powerful. Too much power there would lead to the formation of an elite controlling the means of production, messing up the whole concept. So no huge red army, no secret police, etc. etc. And if the people vote to take a step back towards capitalism, you do that.

A communist government *has* to be all powerful. Otherwise people start to take more than their share. Who else is going to stop them? How are you going to make sure I don't have a basement full of goodies? Anything more than your "share" is by definition theft from your fellow people. Not going to have secret police and informers to make sure no one is stealing?

Yep, and share and share alike seems to be better, instead of a free for all, see who can get the most.

That's kind of a big misunderstanding of our current system. We're not a kleptocracy. ("We" being the developed world. There are several kleptocracies up and running at the moment). The days of the big land grabs are long gone. Resources are allocated by competition, not by theft. The system of competition has some major problems and some really bad loopholes but in the large it works.

What you can't get is getting more than your share at the expense of others.

And who's going to stop me and who's going to define what my "share" is?

Communism has presented a lot of airy promises to people for a long time. People who believed them and thought they would get bread and circuses wound up with bread lines and commissars instead.

[Rand Al'tor]

Yep, as I told Honour, there's a REASON why communism hasn't worked yet. But maybe we'll get robots or other fun stuff eliminating the toilet cleaning duties in the future, until the less interesting jobs are so palpatable that they can be performed by people willing to 'do what must be done'

If we got robots doing all the uninteresting and nasty jobs and everything is cheap, I think the system becomes POST capitalist or communist. If we're all rich does it matter that some people are a little more rich?

Those who have a lot; have a lot of power; and can use that against those who have little:

Unless resource are infinite there will still need to be some way to allocate them. Current "communist" (or shall we say "pseudo-communist"?) countries have done this via bureaucracies.

Not everything, just the allocating of the people's resources according to need. A true communist government shoould be limited by a constitution regarding free speach, religion, etc. just as much as the current ones. In fact, I wouldn't want the communist government to be powerful. Too much power there would lead to the formation of an elite controlling the means of production, messing up the whole concept. So no huge red army, no secret police, etc. etc. And if the people vote to take a step back towards capitalism, you do that.

A communist government *has* to be all powerful. Otherwise people start to take more than their share. Who else is going to stop them? How are you going to make sure I don't have a basement full of goodies? Anything more than your "share" is by definition theft from your fellow people. Not going to have secret police and informers to make sure no one is stealing?

Not anymore than our current society has. I am not an anarchist. There will be police, there will even be an army. But I don't see a reason why communism would have to be absolutist.

Yep, and share and share alike seems to be better, instead of a free for all, see who can get the most.

That's kind of a big misunderstanding of our current system. We're not a kleptocracy. ("We" being the developed world. There are several kleptocracies up and running at the moment). The days of the big land grabs are long gone. Resources are allocated by competition, not by theft. The system of competition has some major problems and some really bad loopholes but in the large it works.

Oh, not grabbing in the 'my gun is bigger than yours' but in the 'I managed to economically outplay you, thus the rare thingies are mine.'

What you can't get is getting more than your share at the expense of others.

And who's going to stop me and who's going to define what my "share" is?

A modest police force, and the dissaproval of your fellow citizens, from whom you are stealing. And the share gets democratically decided, with constitutional checks and balances against discrimination.

Communism has presented a lot of airy promises to people for a long time. People who believed them and thought they would get bread and circuses wound up with bread lines and commissars instead.

Tyrants hid their nature under the veil of communism. And sometimes, people were too desperate to make communism work when it couldn't at that time that they becme what they fought, tyrants. It doesn't take away from the ideology's worth.

[Swordsman3003]

Let's suppose we did have the ideal communist system running.

Without moving a muscle, or thinking at all, I receive everything that I need in order to live. And because wealth is equally distributed, I also attain a certain number of luxuries without so much as getting out of bed in the morning.

No matter how hard I work, I will never be able to acquire any more material goods.

This sounds like an utter shadow of existence.

[JohnnyTwoEyes]

communism is beginning to sound more and more like being in your early thirties and living in your parent's basement. No job, no worries, your basic needs are met and you'll just sit there playing D&D.

Except, unlike communism, your parents can kick you out and make you go get a job.

[RantinAn]

But what you're doing is saying that the very idea of corporations - or, more accurately, of privately owned business - is in and of itself responsible for these shortcomings and therefore evil.

Which is bullshit.

quite right... It certianly wasnt my intention going into the discusison to gie that impression. I was attemting to, and obviously fialing to rant about power imbalances between multinationals and third world countries. the sort of imbalances that meen that phillip morris can pritty much invade botswana without the botswanas being able to do squit about it.

As i have failed, i owe the thread an interweb, and will stfu untill am coherent enough to make my points in a rational sence.

[Putaro]

Yep, and share and share alike seems to be better, instead of a free for all, see who can get the most.

That's kind of a big misunderstanding of our current system. We're not a kleptocracy. ("We" being the developed world. There are several kleptocracies up and running at the moment). The days of the big land grabs are long gone. Resources are allocated by competition, not by theft. The system of competition has some major problems and some really bad loopholes but in the large it works.

Oh, not grabbing in the 'my gun is bigger than yours' but in the 'I managed to economically outplay you, thus the rare thingies are mine.'

Before you can criticize the current system you really need to understand better how it works.

I'm willing to be educated and persuaded on different ways of doing things. The current system has got a multitude of problems. But if you're going to bring communism up as the solution you really need better answers than "Well, everyone who tried it before fucked it up, but this time it'll be better". We sold the communists the rope and they hung *themselves* with it. Why should anyone try it again? Politics cannot repeal economics though people keep on trying.