Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/5/10 11:37 PM, NEVR wrote:

At 8/5/10 11:10 PM, Dubbi wrote: Greed and exploitation are very natural in humans...

Untrue. This is covered under the term "human nature" which is another concept designed to justify the inflictions which are placed on one group of people in order than another may benefit from it. Humans aren't born this way; it's a side-effect of Capitalism. You've got things the wrong way around.

You want to debate Mr. Mod?
If you look at the history of minkind, it is fraught with selfishness and self gain. Name one society where people did only what was right. You can't. In all society's people do wrong, and do things which will benefit them. It's because of survival - greed brings a better life. If we really were all good, capitialist societies wouldn't have developed, but almost all societies are capitialst, which is quite a testement to human nature. You have no evidence for you idealistic assumptions that greed isn't natural to humans.
Marx wrote about the struggle between the haves and the have nots. I'm rather cerain that if the peasents were millions, they wouldn't be demanding change.
I don't believe humans are all bad either - we're a mixed bunch.

Anyway, in capitiaism both the factory owner and worker profits - not just the owner. So, I don't see where your problem is.

The factory worker labours many times harder for a fraction of the profit; ever heard of the term 'minimum wage'? That's exploitation. It's not slavery, but it's pretty much as close as it gets these days.

Payment is produced by how how important a service is, and by how many people can perform it. It's more important to run a factory - without a boss, the factory would fail - and less people can do it - you need special skills - so the factory owner is paid more. This is not to say the workers are paid nothing; they are paid what they realistically deserve. There are an abundance of workers, so if one demands an overly high pay, another worker will take its place. Supply and demand, my friend. And I'm not claiming its fair, only pragmatic. In free market, the factory will hopefully prosper and workers will be paid more. If a boss pays too little, another factory will open up with a new aspiring factory owner who will pay more. The workers will migrate to this factory.

Equailty in the sense that everyone has an equal right to prosper - if they prosper is up to them.

That last part is a little idealistic. Not everybody has the luxury of deciding to be successful.

I believe, in most circumstances, any mentally and physically fit person has the ability to better themselves - not become a ceo - but better themselves. The reason they don't is, they don't strive to. I know that there are situations where a person can't improve their condition, because of what ever reason, but the world isn't perfect.
Capitialism is just the best system we have.

At 8/5/10 11:55 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: Communism - like anarchism - is only plausible on a small scale where the community is tight nit and personal. Otherwise, sociology dictates that that same streak of greed that causes the corruption in communism will defy the will of the commune and destabilize the system, leading to corruption.

caused the corruption in capitalism*

I made quite a few spelling errors in that last post. There's one thing I wish to correct, because I fear the mistake will cause you to misunderstand what I wrote.

I mean: If peasents were millionaires that wouldn't be demanding change.

At 8/5/10 11:37 PM, NEVR wrote: Untrue. This is covered under the term "human nature" which is another concept designed to justify the inflictions which are placed on one group of people in order than another may benefit from it. Humans aren't born this way; it's a side-effect of Capitalism. You've got things the wrong way around.

What evidence do you have for that?

At 8/5/10 11:56 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

At 8/5/10 11:55 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: Communism - like anarchism - is only plausible on a small scale where the community is tight nit and personal. Otherwise, sociology dictates that that same streak of greed that causes the corruption in communism will defy the will of the commune and destabilize the system, leading to corruption.

caused the corruption in capitalism*

Lol, don't be so hard on yourself. I made much more errors - we can't all be like NEVR.

At 8/5/10 11:55 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: Greed is very much in our instincts. It's the natural desire of survival of the fittest: to put oneself and one's kin in a more advantageous position than one's competitors. Almost every species, given the opportunity, will unceremoniously take as much as it can until there's nothing left to take. It's why overpopulation can be so detrimental in an environment.

I'm tired and probably made my point too hastily.

Perhaps on a small scale greed is in our nature, but I don't agree that it's natural on such a perverse scale as the one Capitalism has created. You can hardly compare animals in the wild to such vast human constructs as economy, which span the world and affect everybody. My fundamental point is that Capitalism takes greed and exploitation to a level where it IS unnatural; willingly perpetuating things such as poverty is unconscionable considering we're supposed to be civilised as a race.

But I'm coming off as too Communist for my own liking, so yay Capitalism. I'm hardly exempt from it as I'm studying towards a lucrative career which makes me just as bad.

At 8/6/10 12:27 AM, NEVR wrote:

At 8/5/10 11:55 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: Greed is very much in our instincts. It's the natural desire of survival of the fittest: to put oneself and one's kin in a more advantageous position than one's competitors. Almost every species, given the opportunity, will unceremoniously take as much as it can until there's nothing left to take. It's why overpopulation can be so detrimental in an environment.

I'm tired and probably made my point too hastily.

Perhaps on a small scale greed is in our nature, but I don't agree that it's natural on such a perverse scale as the one Capitalism has created. You can hardly compare animals in the wild to such vast human constructs as economy, which span the world and affect everybody. My fundamental point is that Capitalism takes greed and exploitation to a level where it IS unnatural; willingly perpetuating things such as poverty is unconscionable considering we're supposed to be civilised as a race.

Greed is in our nature in the respect that if some somethig is expedient we will do it. This is why the free market arose: The free exchange of goods brought more goods and prosperity to all. Yes, some people come out on top because of this, but I explained why this is justified in my poorly written earlier post. Expedient decisions and capitalism are not unnatural to humans; on the contrary, they exemplify the human spirit: A spirit consumed with progress and innovation. It is the desire for profit which has allowed for our developed society and our high standard of living.

At 8/5/10 11:55 PM, Dubbi wrote: You want to debate Mr. Mod?

Not particularly; you have your opinions and I have mine. It's too broad a topic to get into at almost 6am, and now that I've voiced my thoughts on the matter there's no need for me to say much more. Sorry to disappoint.

At 8/6/10 12:49 AM, NEVR wrote:

At 8/5/10 11:55 PM, Dubbi wrote: You want to debate Mr. Mod?

Not particularly; you have your opinions and I have mine. It's too broad a topic to get into at almost 6am, and now that I've voiced my thoughts on the matter there's no need for me to say much more. Sorry to disappoint.

Debate offers the best exchange of ideas, and in a good discussion, both parties may see their views change. But I understand if you don't want to.

I won't hassle you further, Mr. Mod.

At 8/6/10 12:27 AM, NEVR wrote: Perhaps on a small scale greed is in our nature, but I don't agree that it's natural on such a perverse scale as the one Capitalism has created. You can hardly compare animals in the wild to such vast human constructs as economy, which span the world and affect everybody. My fundamental point is that Capitalism takes greed and exploitation to a level where it IS unnatural; willingly perpetuating things such as poverty is unconscionable considering we're supposed to be civilised as a race.

Ahh, okay, I think I understand what you're saying.

The problem is that there is no way at this point to rid the world of that worldwide web of commerce that magnifies the impact of our greed because the steps that we would need to take to get from today to a communistic state would leave far too much room for corruption in the intermediary.

But I'm coming off as too Communist for my own liking, so yay Capitalism. I'm hardly exempt from it as I'm studying towards a lucrative career which makes me just as bad.

A middle ground will work - and has worked - best. True capitalism leaves the private sector with too much power and communism leaves too much room for mob rule. Life would be a lot easier if things that worked in theory also worked in practice.

At 8/5/10 09:54 PM, Warforger wrote: Communism has never been done. A true Communist society would have no leader so you can't say it "doesn't work". All the Communist-leaning nations are Socialist, including China and the Soviet Union.

Truth is systems don't off the top "fail" every country is different, has different resources, different people etc. the systems are different from country to country, for example during the Great Depression America was in shit while Germany was rising rapidly, if you were to say "Socialism fails" then people would probably laugh at you. Some places its necessary for a dictator to be in place, others they're more laid back.

Communism has actually been implemented in a relatively pure fashion. and example of this were early communities in Israel when it regained independence in the 20th century. The problem actually occurs when the communities get too large. its easy to redistribute wealth in a community of a few hundred people. A huge ass country with about 3 billion inhabitants not so much.

BTW Germany was never socialist.

Wait, why isn't this in politics?

Sorry if this got already said.

Well look where Capitalism got us! We're stuck in this shitpit of an economy, we have a black president(which is most likely not even black, possibly Arab) The oil spill...has nothing of the sort to do with this. And you know what? Communism pretty much would revolve around any form of goverment. We wouldn't even need it. IMO There both shitty, we should just be anrachists. Fuck everything, nothing deserves to be not on fire!

wow this thread is going to start some serious fires...

At 8/6/10 12:27 AM, NEVR wrote:

But I'm coming off as too Communist for my own liking, so yay Capitalism. I'm hardly exempt from it as I'm studying towards a lucrative career which makes me just as bad.

I see nothing wrong with working hard in your early years with extra schooling to make more money than someone that is working harder that you in you later years. You are doing nothing wrong.

Communism is fucking awesome.

javascript:BBSPost.Save();

At 8/6/10 02:40 AM, letiger wrote: Communism is fucking awesome.

So awesome that no government that ever used it lasted for very long. It is called fair, but it really isn't. People should be rewarded for more schooling and better business ideas.

People seem to like to change things, I like capitalism though. It's not perfect, but communism has never exactly been perfected and seems to assume people aren't lazy.

At 8/5/10 09:46 PM, Cootie wrote: I for one prefer Capitalism. From what I hear Communism aims to have everyone make the same amount of money and that seems like bullshit. Some people claim it is "fair".

The idea of Communism wasn't exactly to have everyone making the same amount of money. Communism basically sought to create a classless society, where the amount that a person 'makes' is directly proportionate to the amount of labour they perform.

It stemmed from the basic idea that if the amount of goods a worker can afford to consume is less than the amount of labour required to produce that amount of goods, then they are being exploited. Conversely, a person who consumes more goods than their labour produces is an exploiter, because somewhere down the line there is a poor bastard working twice as hard so that they can take it easy.

Capitalism rewards people who work harder and come up with faster and more efficient ways of doing things. Why should a dentist make the same amount of money as a bagger at Wal-Mart? That seems to be just about the opposite of "fair" in my opinion.

While Capitalism does reward people who work harder and take on more responsibilities, it also historically led to the masses being practically enslaved by landowners and business owners. Communism was dreamed up in a time and place where it was typical for factory owners to make men, women and children work for sixteen+ hours a day in horrific conditions, for very little reward, with the capitalists keeping all the "surplus labour" for themselves, rather than using it to improve working conditions, and so on.

I want to be a dentist. I will make much more money in than most. But why shouldn't I? If I spend 8 extra years of busting my ass in college shouldn't I make more money than someone who didn't? Shouldn't I make more money than someone that said fuck it and just dropped out of school due to laziness.

I agree. But again, Communism wasn't as simple as "let's make everyone get paid the same regardless of what they do". It was about trying to ensure that a person's labour is rewarded fairly, and making it so that another person (the capitalist) couldn't manipulate and exploit legions of people for his or her own gain.

Agree?

No offense, you have a very typically American view of Communism.

At 9/25/10 06:17 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Not necessarily. The key factor is that income is set democratically and that there's no profit in capital. Communism can mean a lot of different things.

You're right inasmuch that wages are not necessarily equal. However, you cannot support the utterly ridiculous concept of "democratically decided upon wages", can you?

So yes, in a communism other people than now would become doctors. Those that want to save people's lives would become doctors, instead of those wanting to earn a lot. And of course, since communists are historical materialists, they believe people will behave and think differently in a communistic society (material standards and environmental factors clearly affect people's behaviour).

Well firstly, we're not living in a free market, and so you can't blame these problems purely on a market economy.

Secondly, it's retarded to claim that people will have these radically different values under communism.

Plerase understand this: The near universal valuing of material position is not a consequence of living in a orivate-property market economy. Private property and a market economy are the consequences of people valuing their material position.

...which in turn comes from evolution, because those whose psychology lead them to value improving their personal, material circumstances were the ones who contributed most heavily to the following generations.

The point being is that our "Selfish" nature is inherent and a consequence of our evolution, not from living in a "capitalist" system.

And to monopolize those ideas. It's easy to see that in areas where there's no ownership of ideas (for example, art before the 19th century and the current open source movement) there's still a lot of ideas.

Guess what Einstein, copyright, patent and intellectual property laws do not emerge on a free market, but rather they are the product of.....the state INTERVENING in the market i.e. making it not a free market.

By the way, how does it feel supporting an economic system that has been tried literally dozens of times and has never worked? That has ALWAYS resulted in poverty and stagnation and death? lol m8 give up already

communism would work if you werent all assholes, which you are. but, it doesnt give much inspiration or motivation to work and or be promoted, so, i say capitalism, but i say so under protest that the worlds too stupid to share

At 8/6/10 03:35 AM, MercatorMap wrote:

At 8/5/10 09:46 PM, Cootie wrote:

"But, what if I couldn't get into college?". Well here are a few ways. Do good in school do you can have grades that allow you to get in.

I can tell that you'll be bagging my groceries for a long time.

It was a simple grammatical error. I still make very good grades and passed all my graduation exams in the 10th grade. Also, my parents are pretty much forcing me to be successful. College is the only option for me.

they both suck balls

all based on consumerism, and all will fail

doesn't work with 'democracy'

'democracy' because the one here isn't true to it's meaning

The USSR was communist and look what happened to them.

i used to have a chart that showed all the readily available elements that will be used up within the next 100 years

so when gov demands you return rings etc don't blah blablabla

and greed is just a reversion back to the primate dominator hierarchy behavior

you don't see monks or shamans engaging in such, the later religions are a perversion and are controlled by the dominator culture

At 9/25/10 08:10 AM, Cootie wrote:

At 8/6/10 03:35 AM, MercatorMap wrote:

At 8/5/10 09:46 PM, Cootie wrote:

"But, what if I couldn't get into college?". Well here are a few ways. Do good in school do you can have grades that allow you to get in.

I can tell that you'll be bagging my groceries for a long time.

It was a simple grammatical error.

It's okay, Cootie. Some people are immature.

Anyway, though I prefer capitalism, I have recently been reading about communism and have to say that it is not as bad as people make it out to be. It's just when a society has a cruel dictator in place and violent revolutions does it become too much for me.

At 8/5/10 09:47 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Communism DOESN'T WORK.

If everyone is equal and gets the same pay there is bound to be greed and there is bound to be a dictatorship.