Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/22/12 11:54 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/22/12 11:45 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: To leanlifter

But in the real world that's not how it works out.

In the real world we have never seen Communism.

I'll agree.

In the real world every single attempt at Communism has been botched by some monetary system or another.

Not really. There is a different reason why every historical attempt at communism has failed, but this isn't it. More on this later.

What you are proposing is not Pure Communism what you are proposing is a Communist Dictatorship which is a botched bastardization of what true and pure Communism actually is.

It's important to note that many "Communists" will tell you that there is a process by which Communism is achieved, going through a phase of Marxist socialism before ever being able to enter into Communism itself. In this phase the government essentially collects power among all people before consuming all the power and devolving into a stateless society. The problem is that the people who run governments will never let that happen, as it would deprive them of the power that they have been working so hard to achieve.

It's also important to realize that Communism values capitalism, viewing it necessary as a harbinger of future changes to come. The core of Communist doctrine stated that capitalism was absolutely essential to developing the tools that society would need in order to take the next step towards communism. The view was that without capitalism, communism could never be achieved. This, however, is where many of the 20th century "Communist" revolutionaries diverged from Marxist ideology and tried to establish a socialist collective through force as opposed to what Marx and Engels said, which was that society would have to collectivize as the means of production was developed through capitalism. So, the 20th century "Communists" were in many ways trying to force something that was originally understood to be part of a natural evolution in society. In short, the Communist revolutionaries weren't really adhering to the concepts which they were espousing.

So the problem isn't really that the attempts themselves haven't worked, or even that the people in power are unwilling to give up power, it's the fact that every current version of the Communist party is trying to force what is assumed as a natural evolution, meaning every attempt at communism has failed because it was trying to make something happen socially and economically in societies that weren't truly prepared for it.

Real True Communism is common ownership of everything for one and for all and a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, and social, political and economic ideology's.

Here's the problem with advocating for communism - you are trying to force a social evolution that isn't ready to happen yet. Communist ideology is meant to happen as a natural evolution, not through violence (Bolshevik Revolution) or swift political action (China, Cuba). If you want capitalism to happen step back and let nature take its course, we will get there eventually (assuming Marx was right).

At 11/24/12 11:12 PM, theburningliberal wrote:

At 11/22/12 11:54 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/22/12 11:45 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: To leanlifter

But in the real world that's not how it works out.

In the real world we have never seen Communism.

I'll agree.

In the real world every single attempt at Communism has been botched by some monetary system or another.

Not really. There is a different reason why every historical attempt at communism has failed, but this isn't it. More on this later.

There is a reason in why a monetary system is not included in a real working pure communist society as money enables a direct differential advantage to the individual which is a polar opposite of what communism is trying to accomplish. This is why attempted Communism failed in the past because they did not even follow the basic fundamental rules of which Communism is built on which includes absolutely no monetary system of any kind.

What you are proposing is not Pure Communism what you are proposing is a Communist Dictatorship which is a botched bastardization of what true and pure Communism actually is.

It's important to note that many "Communists" will tell you that there is a process by which Communism is achieved, going through a phase of Marxist socialism before ever being able to enter into Communism itself. In this phase the government essentially collects power among all people before consuming all the power and devolving into a stateless society. The problem is that the people who run governments will never let that happen, as it would deprive them of the power that they have been working so hard to achieve.

Communism is Government less, Stateless, Classless, moneyless society. What you are proposing is a Quasi amalgamation of ideals into one in turn forcing the system to work against it's self and fail. Once again there is no Government, State, Class, or Monetary system in Communism and if there is than it is no longer Communism.

It's also important to realize that Communism values capitalism

Once again there is no Capitalism in Communism and if there is then it is no longer Communism and that is why it would have failed. What you are effectively stating for example is that Democracy can have a dictator which is absurd.

Real True Communism is common ownership of everything for one and for all and a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, and social, political and economic ideology's.

Here's the problem with advocating for communism -

First off who is as you say advocating for Communism ?

you are trying to force a social evolution that isn't ready to happen yet.

Say's who LOL ? I am not trying to force anything.

Communist ideology is meant to happen as a natural evolution, not through violence (Bolshevik Revolution) or swift political action (China, Cuba).

Define Natural.

If you want capitalism to happen step back and let nature take its course, we will get there eventually (assuming Marx was right).

Once again though in you mind Communism might mean some sort of quasi capitalism and that is up to your own discretion however in reality Communism has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.

At 11/23/12 05:36 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 11/23/12 02:30 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I can hold a very specific notion of Fascism in my head but it will likely find itself at odds with what other people imagine when they throw the word about carelessly.

;;;;
Facism doesn't mean you have Hitler or as in history in 30's Italy ...Mussolini's facist government.

That is what many people get confused by, they believe you have to be ruled by a dictator ... when that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

Yes but you see if you deconstruct fascism in to its core components, and then present them piecemeal to the average american, do you think he would or would not approve of them as much as calling it all, collectively, 'Fascism'

I am of the opinion that the majority of Americans support, or in 10 years will come to support everything that people like you and I are aware USFG is doing at this very moment.

At 11/25/12 01:22 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: There is a reason in why a monetary system is not included in a real working pure communist society as money enables a direct differential advantage to the individual which is a polar opposite of what communism is trying to accomplish. This is why attempted Communism failed in the past because they did not even follow the basic fundamental rules of which Communism is built on which includes absolutely no monetary system of any kind.

What you are proposing is not Pure Communism what you are proposing is a Communist Dictatorship which is a botched bastardization of what true and pure Communism actually is.

Not by that name, but the essential theory of communism is that if enough power over the means of production is amassed, it will revert to a system where the old meanings fall away, money becomes worthless in a society where "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Everyone's needs are met through a common ownership of the means of production.

Communism is Government less, Stateless, Classless, moneyless society. What you are proposing is a Quasi amalgamation of ideals into one in turn forcing the system to work against it's self and fail.

No, what I am telling you is Marx's view of how that transition from capitalism (which he viewed as inherently necessary when transitioning from the feudal economies of the past through industrialization and eventually to globalization) to communism takes place. Indeed, many of the strongest opponents of Communist regimes are those who argue the transition cannot be made to happen through force, it is the "natural evolution" of the development of our economies.

Once again there is no Government, State, Class, or Monetary system in Communism and if there is than it is no longer Communism

Pure communism is as you say, but the path to get there is riddled with capitalism and socialism which Marx and Engels both argued were inherently necessary and beneficial, but will eventually fade away as the economy continues to develop, necessitating broad changes in how power is exercised and what the exercise of power looks like.

Once again there is no Capitalism in Communism and if there is then it is no longer Communism and that is why it would have failed. What you are effectively stating for example is that Democracy can have a dictator which is absurd.

Please re-familiarize yourself with communist ideology.

First off who is as you say advocating for Communism ?

Apparently you are, you keep bringing it up as this shining example of what we should aspire to or some such damn thing.

you are trying to force a social evolution that isn't ready to happen yet.

Say's who LOL ? I am not trying to force anything.

Advocating for any kind of communism or communist policies just sets the stage for what we saw in the USSR - the establishment of a corrupt, top-down bureaucracy that is in itself a dramatic perversion of communist ideology. The idea is that through the responses to large economic events, over time governments will naturally collect power over the means of production and those power graps will be seen as legitimate. Over time, the accumulated power of the government will become so great that it just naturally falls away in a world where it is no longer needed since society itself is administering the day to day economic functions without resorting to the tools of the past (the state, money, etc...).

Communist ideology is meant to happen as a natural evolution, not through violence (Bolshevik Revolution) or swift political action (China, Cuba).

Define Natural.

If you want capitalism to happen step back and let nature take its course, we will get there eventually (assuming Marx was right).

Once again though in you mind Communism might mean some sort of quasi capitalism and that is up to your own discretion however in reality Communism has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.

You twist my words. I never said capitalism might mean some sort of quasi capitalism. I said communism places value on capitalism and its role in setting the economic framework for the social revolution to follow.

I swear, boy, next time you try this I am going to take you out back to the whipping shed, maybe a nice 2x4 over your backside will knock the stupid out of you.

At 11/26/12 12:54 AM, theburningliberal wrote:

At 11/25/12 01:22 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

What you are proposing is not Pure Communism what you are proposing is a Communist Dictatorship which is a botched bastardization of what true and pure Communism actually is.

Not by that name, but the essential theory of communism is that if enough power over the means of production is amassed, it will revert to a system where the old meanings fall away, money becomes worthless in a society where "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Everyone's needs are met through a common ownership of the means of production.

Communism is Government less, Stateless, Classless, moneyless society. What you are proposing is a Quasi amalgamation of ideals into one in turn forcing the system to work against it's self and fail. Once again there is no Capitism in Communism as it is a direct opposite of what the core ideal of what Communism is about.

Marxism-Leninism is a far-left ideology based on principles of class conflict, (((( egalitarianism )))), dialectical materialism, rationalism, and social progress. It is anti-bourgeois, (((( anti-capitalist )))), anti-conservative, (((( anti-fascist )))), anti-imperialist, anti-liberal, anti-reactionary, and is opposed to bourgeois democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism-Leninism

Socialism is what I lean towards. Market socialism to be precise, it keeps all the tenets of socialism except the government doesn't plan the economy and the market is still in tact. Communism, at least for now, is just too big of a jump from what we have now and I think that it may be possible if we had socialism for so long that everyones viewpoint and way of thinking completely changed.

Also, funny how people claim that Communism means totalitarianism since what Marx described was the exact opposite and there was no governments at all.

At 11/26/12 08:24 AM, Cootie wrote:

Also, funny how people claim that Communism means totalitarianism since what Marx described was the exact opposite and there was no governments at all.

Thanks for clarifying that up. I think it is somewhat made popular to hate on Communism because of the Anti Communism Propaganda that the US try's to pump up people asses by way of the Media.

At 11/26/12 10:10 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/26/12 08:24 AM, Cootie wrote:

Also, funny how people claim that Communism means totalitarianism since what Marx described was the exact opposite and there was no governments at all.

Thanks for clarifying that up. I think it is somewhat made popular to hate on Communism because of the Anti Communism Propaganda that the US try's to pump up people asses by way of the Media.

First off, communism in practice as we have known it is totalitarianism. Maybe it's not supposed to be that way, but that is how it has been practiced and thats all the world knows about it.

Secondly, look at the socialism that Marx advocates as a stepping stone for communism... The essential idea is that government gets so much power that it cant help but return all that power to the people, resulting in communism. Also important to note, Marx advocated for a money less society but argued that materials would still constitute currency. In this case, precious metals, resources and other things of intrinsic value would become the new currency, rather than the extrinsic currency we have now.

At 11/26/12 01:56 PM, theburningliberal wrote:

At 11/26/12 10:10 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/26/12 08:24 AM, Cootie wrote:

Also, funny how people claim that Communism means totalitarianism since what Marx described was the exact opposite and there was no governments at all.

Thanks for clarifying that up. I think it is somewhat made popular to hate on Communism because of the Anti Communism Propaganda that the US try's to pump up people asses by way of the Media.

First off, communism in practice as we have known it is totalitarianism. Maybe it's not supposed to be that way, but that is how it has been practiced and thats all the world knows about it.

We already went through this and proved you wrong as Communism was never a reality in practice EVER in history or today.

Secondly, look at the socialism that Marx advocates as a stepping stone for communism...

Marxist/Leninist model of Communism calls for common ownership of the means of production and of social, political and economic ideology's so why are you stuck on socialism like it is some terrible thing. Moving forward ...

The essential idea is that government gets so much power that it cant help but return all that power to the people, resulting in communism.

How is that a bad thing restoring power to the people I mean ? How the power is restored to the people under true Communism includes proclaiming common ownership of the means of production and of social, political and economic ideology's.

Also important to note, Marx advocated for a money less society but argued that materials would still constitute currency. In this case, precious metals, resources and other things of intrinsic value would become the new currency, rather than the extrinsic currency we have now.

Incorrect as Communism in any way shape or form does not include any system of currency or even barter and if it did it was not Communism. Communism means common ownership of the means of production and of social, political and economic ideology's therefor with that being clear makes any sort of system that enables a deferential advantage of the individual such as a monetary system in direct conflict with the core fundamentals of true and pure Communism therefor rendering it corrupt and no longer effective.

The reason Communism will never work is because it defy's human nature. Most human beings are greedy by nature.

For Communism to work no one could be greedy, every ones ambitions could not be great, every one would have to think in terms of lets share and share a like, every one would have to act like the smurfs and sing la la la la, and every one would have to think in terms of I will work as hard as I can all for the good of ever one else. Regardless of the fact that I receive the exact same as everybody else. Even if I work harder and accomplish more.

Can you honestly say that every single person you've meet is like that? Hell can you say that most people you've meet are like that? If your answer is yes then you are a liar.

Going to play devil's advocate here. I'm not necessarily a supporter of communism, but absolutist thoughts of "it could never ever work" aren't something I support either. It's the Trekkie in me, I suppose.

At 11/26/12 10:32 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: The reason Communism will never work is because it defy's human nature. Most human beings are greedy by nature.

It might be possible to take human nature out of the equation, or at least temper it with something less volatile. If you could build a resource-based economy through a non-biased computer algorithm, then one could compare human actions to the digital model and determine if it is conducive to a communist society or not. Of course, the trick to that is building a non-biased algorithm, which ultimately has to be written by humans; furthermore, people would have to be allowed the free will to not follow the digital model, lest the society become totalitarian.

For Communism to work no one could be greedy, every ones ambitions could not be great, every one would have to think in terms of lets share and share a like...and every one would have to think in terms of I will work as hard as I can all for the good of ever one else. Regardless of the fact that I receive the exact same as everybody else. Even if I work harder and accomplish more.

Call this a crazy idea, but what if the accomplishment itself is the reward? Can the very notion of success, the potential to realize one's vision, be enough motivation to put in the effort? You've said that the majority of people are driven by the pursuit of material wealth, but I argue that this behavior is learned, indoctrinated by a society that uses material wealth as the primary or even solitary measure of success. I believe it is not wealth that people pursue, but the idea that wealth represents in a capitalist society. If money is no object, then the path to that idea is fundamentally altered, and the source of motivation changes.

At 11/26/12 10:32 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: The reason Communism will never work is because it defy's human nature. Most human beings are greedy by nature.

For Communism to work no one could be greedy, every ones ambitions could not be great, every one would have to think in terms of lets share and share a like, every one would have to act like the smurfs and sing la la la la, and every one would have to think in terms of I will work as hard as I can all for the good of ever one else. Regardless of the fact that I receive the exact same as everybody else. Even if I work harder and accomplish more.

Can you honestly say that every single person you've meet is like that? Hell can you say that most people you've meet are like that? If your answer is yes then you are a liar.

That's the same old flawed cop out logic dar "humans are greedy" there fore equality will never work LOL. Well when you consider that greed is not an inherent faculty of any human being it is a learned behavior and you can unlearn bullshit. Also good thing the vehicle that is your human body is not greedy otherwise you would be in a world of hurt on the contrary the healthy Human body is the pinnacle of how a harmonious balance works.

At 11/26/12 10:32 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: The reason Communism will never work is because it defy's human nature. Most human beings are greedy by nature.

Greed is against nature. Wanting more dead wildebeest than you can eat is cultural suicide.

Saying greed is human nature is bullshit. Propaganda by way of advertising pushes greed. The Capitalist system depends on advertising to indoctrinate greed. Just about everything in the supermarket is forcing us to buy 2 or more to get a 'fair price'. Forced up-selling wouldn't be necessary if greed was an innate human trait.

The few people want to own 30 cars.. it's cos they were brainwashed by owning 30 toy cars when they were young, or suffer from some undiagnosed psychological deficit.

.

At 11/26/12 10:32 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: Most human beings are greedy by nature.

Without the manufacturing of greed Americanism would fall. There comes a point when the material possessions you own start to become a real bane.

At 11/26/12 11:58 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:
It might be possible to take human nature out of the equation, or at least temper it with something less volatile. If you could build a resource-based economy through a non-biased computer algorithm

Call this a crazy idea, but what if the accomplishment itself is the reward?

To the first comment, Are you suggesting that we should have a hive mind like ants?

To the second comment, There are a some people that do feel that way but the vast majority of people are not like that. Even for people who like to volunteer they do it on and off. Only helping when they get around to it or feel like it.

At 11/27/12 05:23 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:
Without the manufacturing of greed Americanism would fall. There comes a point when the material possessions you own start to become a real bane.

This has nothing to do with "Americanism" as you call it. It has to do with human nature itself. Even during the stone age people liked to own and collect things and yes they fought over scarce resources back then to. The only difference is what they fought over.

Also you can see it in even baby's. Lets say a baby has a ball. Then baby shows no interest in it. Then you take the ball and start playing with it. Suddenly the baby wants the ball even though it did not care about it before. Its just human nature and you are not going to change that by getting ride of a few products from the market.

At 11/27/12 03:14 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:
Greed is against nature. Wanting more dead wildebeest than you can eat is cultural suicide.

I did not say it was logical but its the truth. Even animals do it. Some species of birds like to collect shiny things like coins. These thing are of no use to the bird but they do it any way. Hell animals fight over things all the time. Greed does not mean you would kill off all the wild game. Our greed tend to focus on materialistic things. You can even see it in baby's. Lets say a baby has a ball. Then baby shows no interest in it. Then you take the ball and start playing with it. Suddenly the baby wants the ball even though it did not care about it before.

At 11/27/12 11:02 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:

Also you can see it in even baby's. Lets say a baby has a ball. Then baby shows no interest in it. Then you take the ball and start playing with it. Suddenly the baby wants the ball even though it did not care about it before. Its just human nature and you are not going to change that by getting ride of a few products from the market.

That's because infants learn by example "monkey see monkey do" this has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with how you raise your child.

At 11/27/12 12:22 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
That's because infants learn by example "monkey see monkey do" this has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with how you raise your child.

Monkey see monkey do applies to copying what someone else does. In this case the baby just wants the ball. Usually the baby will just hold on to the ball for a little while then discard it like they don't care about it any more. If you take the ball again they will care about it again.

At 11/27/12 10:40 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:

At 11/26/12 11:58 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:
It might be possible to take human nature out of the equation, or at least temper it with something less volatile. If you could build a resource-based economy through a non-biased computer algorithm

To the first comment, Are you suggesting that we should have a hive mind like ants?

One: as I said before, I'm playing devil's advocate. What I write in these posts is not necessarily what I believe in, nor a recommended course of action.

Two: that is not what I meant at all. Groupthink stifles creativity and individual freedom, and is detrimental to the progress of civilization. As I said, in order for the digital model to work for a free society, people would have to be allowed the voluntary choice of whether to follow its advice or not. It would be like consulting an expert, not following orders. Indeed, a panel of experts might be a better idea: multiple algorithms with different approaches to the same goal.

Call this a crazy idea, but what if the accomplishment itself is the reward?

To the second comment, There are a some people that do feel that way but the vast majority of people are not like that. Even for people who like to volunteer they do it on and off. Only helping when they get around to it or feel like it.

That argument may be a cart-driven horse. From an early age, we learn that if work does not result in profit, then it does not benefit us and is not worth the effort. In a capitalist society, profit means survival, so in that context it makes sense. It is a learned behavior, and any learned behavior can be unlearned if the right conditions are present. A communist society would be a fundamental alteration of conditions that we tend to take for granted, requiring the people within that society to learn a different set of behaviors. It might take a few generations to complete the transition, but it could be done.

At 11/27/12 01:24 PM, Jmayer20 wrote:

At 11/27/12 12:22 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
That's because infants learn by example "monkey see monkey do" this has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with how you raise your child.

Monkey see monkey do applies to copying what someone else does. In this case the baby just wants the ball. Usually the baby will just hold on to the ball for a little while then discard it like they don't care about it any more. If you take the ball again they will care about it again.

That's completely up for debate and I would even go as far as to saying a matter of opinion and as well circumstantial.

At 11/27/12 02:37 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 11/27/12 10:40 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:

At 11/26/12 11:58 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:
It might be possible to take human nature out of the equation, or at least temper it with something less volatile. If you could build a resource-based economy through a non-biased computer algorithm

To the first comment, Are you suggesting that we should have a hive mind like ants?

One: as I said before, I'm playing devil's advocate. What I write in these posts is not necessarily what I believe in, nor a recommended course of action.

Two: that is not what I meant at all. Groupthink stifles creativity and individual freedom, and is detrimental to the progress of civilization. As I said, in order for the digital model to work for a free society, people would have to be allowed the voluntary choice of whether to follow its advice or not. It would be like consulting an expert, not following orders. Indeed, a panel of experts might be a better idea: multiple algorithms with different approaches to the same goal.

Call this a crazy idea, but what if the accomplishment itself is the reward?

To the second comment, There are a some people that do feel that way but the vast majority of people are not like that. Even for people who like to volunteer they do it on and off. Only helping when they get around to it or feel like it.

That argument may be a cart-driven horse. From an early age, we learn that if work does not result in profit, then it does not benefit us and is not worth the effort. In a capitalist society, profit means survival, so in that context it makes sense. It is a learned behavior, and any learned behavior can be unlearned if the right conditions are present. A communist society would be a fundamental alteration of conditions that we tend to take for granted, requiring the people within that society to learn a different set of behaviors. It might take a few generations to complete the transition, but it could be done.

First off I don't agree with anything you just said there. But lets just say your right and after a few generations we would get every single person in society to start acting like the care bares or the smurfs. What would you do in the meantime? The first generations would still be set in the old ways. Ignoring the problems with manufacturing of the goods you would still need some one to distribute the goods equally to everyone else. Whats to stop them from giving themselves more? How would the average person even know if they gave them selves more?

You would still need law enforcement to stop rapists, thieves, and serial killers. Since your system has no checks or balances whats to stop the law enforcement from taking over like they did in every failed attempted at communism? Oh and before you say it we can't have every one get up from there jobs and go after these criminals because people would be needed to continue the work while the search is going on. How do we decided who goes and who stays? How does everyone learn of the crime? Oh don't say someone just reports it on the internet. Because very soon you would have false rumors going around and people would not know what to believe.

How are new laws decided. You need a government to do that, whats to stop them from taking over? Even if you have the people vote on everything which is a true democracy (not representative democracy like we have) there are two major problems with that. 1.) It takes time to organize an election and some things have to be decided right away. Like if an enemy army invaded. 2.) Absolute power corrupts absolutely. An all powerful people will do just as much wrong as an all powerful king.

These are just some of the problems with communism but I think I said enough about that for now. One more thing you said that you were just playing devils advocate and that you don't really believe in what you are saying to this I ask you to tell what your real point of view is. Also you don't need to play devils advocate there are plenty of people like leanlifter1 that actually believe in this.

At 11/26/12 11:58 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

One: as I said before, I'm playing devil's advocate. What I write in these posts is not necessarily what I believe in, nor a recommended course of action.

Noted

Two: that is not what I meant at all. Groupthink stifles creativity and individual freedom, and is detrimental to the progress of civilization. As I said, in order for the digital model to work for a free society, people would have to be allowed the voluntary choice of whether to follow its advice or not. It would be like consulting an expert, not following orders. Indeed, a panel of experts might be a better idea: multiple algorithms with different approaches to the same goal.

Didn't you just describe the internet in general and Google and Wikipedia more specifically? So are you advocating that every person should be able to access to the internet at all times? That is not far off, at least for first world countries.

That argument may be a cart-driven horse. From an early age, we learn that if work does not result in profit, then it does not benefit us and is not worth the effort. In a capitalist society, profit means survival, so in that context it makes sense. It is a learned behavior, and any learned behavior can be unlearned if the right conditions are present. A communist society would be a fundamental alteration of conditions that we tend to take for granted, requiring the people within that society to learn a different set of behaviors. It might take a few generations to complete the transition, but it could be done.

An interesting idea, some of our society's behaviors may be changeable over the course of many generations of indoctrination. However the only ways that you could do this would require huge amounts of suffering. You would need to remove all of your population's freedoms and rule them with an iron fist.

The closest that humanity has come in modern times to this is Germany under the rule of Adolph Hitler. The Nazi party had set up breeding programs and indoctrination/brain washing centers where male children were taught that their role in society was to fight and die for the fatherland and girls were taught that they should be breeding mares for the fatherland in order to produce more of the master race. This is certainly not a path that we want to go down again in our society.

At 11/27/12 05:10 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: ...

Before I begin, let it be clear that I take slight offense to the placing of words in my mouth as if you were predicting what my train of thought would be. And for the record, you weren't even close, so kindly stick to giving your own opinion and let me give mine.

First off I don't agree with anything you just said there. But lets just say your right and after a few generations we would get every single person in society to start acting like the care bares or the smurfs.

Off to a great start here. I never said, nor do I believe, that a communist society would be sunshine and rainbows. There would still be liars, cheaters, criminals, corrupt ne'er-do-wells, and all-around jerkasses. These are problems that economics do not solve.

What would you do in the meantime? The first generations would still be set in the old ways. Ignoring the problems with manufacturing of the goods you would still need some one to distribute the goods equally to everyone else. Whats to stop them from giving themselves more? How would the average person even know if they gave them selves more?

I never claimed it would be easy. A capitalist society could not adopt pure communism overnight; the model would have to be implemented in a series of steps, the elimination of capital being the last of these. Until that point, workers would still be paid in capital to manufacture and produce. What the steps leading up to the elimination of capital would be, I freely admit I don't know. It's not something I've ever considered as I don't take communism seriously enough to devote the years of my life to figuring it out (see my actual opinion at bottom).

As for distribution of goods, I think the monitoring of such activity would best be handled by independent watchdog groups, which would publish reports on how goods were distributed for examination by the citizens who use the distribution service, who in turn would decide whether or not to continue using said service. The actual distributors should be private, not-for-profit entities, not a monopoly of the state as was proposed by Marx.

You would still need law enforcement to stop rapists, thieves, and serial killers. Since your system has no checks or balances whats to stop the law enforcement from taking over like they did in every failed attempted at communism?

Good question. It might just be possible that a stateless society is infeasible, undesirable and unrealistic, which is something I never denied.

But continuing on the devil's advocate route, it can also be argued that because the society is both moneyless and stateless, a dedicated volunteer police force would become politically and economically viable. The key to preventing said police from becoming an authoritarian dictatorship would be keeping their forces non-monopolistic - agencies monitored by other agencies also monitored by agencies under the watchful eye of the agencies being monitored, all of which are being monitored by concerned citizens. It's not a perfect system and would take a lot of work, but the alternative of a single unmonitored collective force is certainly worse.

Oh and before you say it we can't have every one get up from there jobs and go after these criminals because people would be needed to continue the work while the search is going on.

Yes, that idea is laughable, and it never even occurred to me to suggest such a thing. A full-time police force would still be necessary.

How do we decided who goes and who stays? How does everyone learn of the crime? Oh don't say someone just reports it on the internet. Because very soon you would have false rumors going around and people would not know what to believe.

Another naive and senseless argument that never crossed my mind. Again, a full-time police force would still be present, and the same systems we use today would certainly still exist in some form.

How are new laws decided. You need a government to do that, whats to stop them from taking over? Even if you have the people vote on everything which is a true democracy (not representative democracy like we have) there are two major problems with that. 1.) It takes time to organize an election and some things have to be decided right away. Like if an enemy army invaded. 2.) Absolute power corrupts absolutely. An all powerful people will do just as much wrong as an all powerful king.

Agreed on all points. I'm really not seeing what any of this has to do with the economic theories we were discussing before.

These are just some of the problems with communism but I think I said enough about that for now. One more thing you said that you were just playing devils advocate and that you don't really believe in what you are saying to this I ask you to tell what your real point of view is.

From a strictly economic standpoint, communism is infeasible. Ultimately, its fatal flaw is the number of people who out of simple laziness would decide they didn't need to work and would just sit around playing video games all day. (A bit ironic, considering I'm not an Objectivist either.) I have yet to see any practical argument of how this issue would be resolved that does not involve some form of government mandate or mob rule.

Politically, the communist idea of a stateless society has the same problems as any form of anarchy, which I also do not advocate.

Also you don't need to play devils advocate there are plenty of people like leanlifter1 that actually believe in this.

I know this. I'm debating the issue because a healthy debate is my idea of fun. Plus I don't think the advocates of communism have been doing a very good job of explaining their position; if I'm going to disagree with someone, I'd rather it be on the basis of an actual position than not being able to comprehend a wall of mindless jabber.

So, any more questions?

At 11/27/12 11:31 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:
From a strictly economic standpoint, communism is infeasible. Ultimately, its fatal flaw is the number of people who out of simple laziness would decide they didn't need to work and would just sit around playing video games all day. (A bit ironic, considering I'm not an Objectivist either.) I have yet to see any practical argument of how this issue would be resolved that does not involve some form of government mandate or mob rule.

Politically, the communist idea of a stateless society has the same problems as any form of anarchy, which I also do not advocate.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to get across. Thank you for telling me your point of view on this. Well we both made it clear what we think about Communism but what do you think about Socialism?

At 11/28/12 12:23 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:

Politically, the communist idea of a stateless society has the same problems as any form of anarchy, which I also do not advocate.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to get across. Thank you for telling me your point of view on this. Well we both made it clear what we think about Communism but what do you think about Socialism?

The funny thing is that you naysayers never have any solid proof against things that go against your personal ideal norm will just end in terrible travesty. One thing is for certain in that the current monetary system will end the USA and that is a mathematical fact and you can just consider the combined public and national debt if you need a wake up call to reality.

At 11/28/12 04:20 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: The funny thing is that you naysayers never have any solid proof against things that go against your personal ideal norm will just end in terrible travesty. One thing is for certain in that the current monetary system will end the USA and that is a mathematical fact and you can just consider the combined public and national debt if you need a wake up call to reality.

Funny how you say that leanlifer1 considering that you never give any solid proof to anything that you say. In fact you just said that "current monetary system will end the USA" but you did not provide any solid proof of this. Now you probably wont provide any proof. Knowing you, you'll just say LOL, your stupid, and your a fascist. Because you just expect us to just mindlessly follow every word you say and never question you.

At 11/28/12 11:26 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:

At 11/28/12 04:20 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: The funny thing is that you naysayers never have any solid proof against things that go against your personal ideal norm will just end in terrible travesty. One thing is for certain in that the current monetary system will end the USA and that is a mathematical fact and you can just consider the combined public and national debt if you need a wake up call to reality.

Funny how you say that leanlifer1 considering that you never give any solid proof to anything that you say. In fact you just said that "current monetary system will end the USA" but you did not provide any solid proof of this. Now you probably wont provide any proof. Knowing you, you'll just say LOL, your stupid, and your a fascist. Because you just expect us to just mindlessly follow every word you say and never question you.

I suggest to consider the public and national debt as reason enough to suggest that the US is finished. Warren Buffet said that you should tax the rich people @ 30% so lets say we did that which would amount to just over 3 Billion dollars a year and that would take over 514 years just to pay off Obamas 2012 deficit. As I say mathematically it's all over and the sooner you guy's understand this the better off we all will be.

At 11/26/12 03:25 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: We already went through this and proved you wrong as Communism was never a reality in practice EVER in history or today.

No, you never proved me wrong on anything. The only thing you've proven thus far is how uninformed you are when it comes to Marxist theory on Communism.

Marxist/Leninist model of Communism calls for common ownership of the means of production and of social, political and economic ideology's so why are you stuck on socialism like it is some terrible thing. Moving forward ...

First off, you can't throw Marxism and Leninism together because they are inherently different in a variety of ways. Aside from the fact that Lenin changed several major tenets of Marxist ideals (in part because Russia at the time of Lenin's ascension had not met the ideal economic state proposed by Marx, so Lenin had to force the economic development necessary to and inherent in Marxist ideology). Marx was also imposed to imperialism, whereas Lenin viewed imperialism as an inherent necessity in order to prevent the kind of revolution that Marx predicted would happen in a sufficiently advanced capitalist state as the ruling class suppressed moves to socialism. The two systems are almost diametrically opposed.

Secondly, read up on Marxist socialism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism) . Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism , specifically this: "Marxist theory holds that pure communism or full communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals.[2][3] The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism

How is that a bad thing restoring power to the people I mean ?

Never said it was bad.

How the power is restored to the people under true Communism includes proclaiming common ownership of the means of production and of social, political and economic ideology's.

The problem with modern applications of communism is that the "vanguard party" has tried to use state power to seize ownership of the means of production, rather than letting the state naturally collect the power necessary to effectively create this kind of transition. It is important to note that Marx's writings were purely theoretical, he never intended for Communism to be implemented as we have seen it in the 20th century. His ideas were based on a historical understanding of economic development, and I would argue that the US is the closest country to following Marxist ideology, as over the last 80 years the government has slowly been accumulating power over the means of production, just as Marx said would happen.

Incorrect as Communism in any way shape or form does not include any system of currency or even barter and if it did it was not Communism.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" prevents there being a class of people who are lacking in the basic necessities but doesn't take into account the "wants" of the people. In a communist society with today's technology, for instance, if I wanted to get a PS3, I wouldn't be able to just buy one as we do now, but I would likely have to trade to obtain it. A PS3, after all, is not a need, it is a want (no matter which way you define "need"). So yes, there would be some form of barter system to determine allocation of needs.

Communism means common ownership of the means of production and of social, political and economic ideology's

You keep saying that, but I think you have no idea what it means.

therefor with that being clear makes any sort of system that enables a deferential advantage of the individual such as a monetary system in direct conflict with the core fundamentals of true and pure Communism therefor rendering it corrupt and no longer effective.

Monetary system, yes. Barter system to obtain items I desire rather than need, no.

At 11/28/12 01:33 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I suggest to consider the public and national debt as reason enough to suggest that the US is finished.

Oh really. So having debt is an inherently bad thing, yet credit/debt is one of the key things that make our economy function. Hmm...

Warren Buffet said that you should tax the rich people @ 30%

Yes. He also proposed raising the capital gains tax rate which (currently) is 15%, down from 29% during the Clinton years. I am not sure what proponents of the Buffett rule would want to raise it to, but I'm guessing at least a raise of several percentage points. The basic tenet of the Buffett rule is that the rich should not pay less as a portion of income than the middle class.

so lets say we did that which would amount to just over 3 Billion dollars a year

Five, actually, but it's a moot point - the Buffett rule was never intended to make an impact on the deficit, it was to correct subjective fairness issues in the tax code.

and that would take over 514 years just to pay off Obamas 2012 deficit.

You do realize that the Buffett rule would hit only about 0.3% of all US taxpayers? Basing your argument on a tax rule that affects so few Americans seems kind of iffy.

As I say mathematically it's all over

Not really. The biggest thing we need to do right now is concentrate on finding policies that stimulate economic growth as, historically, tax revenues have been highest when the economy does well. The argument that lowering top marginal/effective tax rates seems to stimulate economic growth doesn't fly, because our economy has historically done better when tax rates are relatively higher (most of the 20th century and during the Clinton years) than when they are lower (SnL scandal during Reagan, all of Bush's presidency including the recession that Obama inherited). So raising capital gains taxes, certainly limiting deductions on tax returns claiming more than 250,000 in annual income to, perhaps, 3-5% of overall income would help, and then finding ways to invest in the middle class (which, depending on the definition used, comprises 40-60% of the population, or 130-170million people). For me, that means increased education spending (specifically at the post-secondary level to give working-class Americans a better chance at a college education), investing in infrastructure development (which would give Americans jobs, both with and without a college degree... It takes a degree to design new infrastructure, but it doesn't take much more than a strong arm to build it).

And the deficit has already been cut by almost 300 billion dollars since Obama took office. I still question the wisdom of spending 600 billion plus on our military (which is roughly double the spending rate for military in 2000), and there are certainly some entitlements that could use some help, both in terms of restructuring to reduce administrative waste and eliminating some (like subsidies for big oil) that do nothing to help promote economic development.

and the sooner you guy's understand this the better off we all will be.

Not really. And see my last post in this thread, it contains some helpful hints for trolls like you. Now go away and let the adults talk.