Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

I would not like to be in a communist country.

If I did a very well done job, day in and out, working hard at it and doing it well, and in the end I get the same out of it as a guy who has done an average job.

I would thus loose my motivation to do more and just do an average job if I get nothing out of it for doing more.

Basically, if I do an average job, I would get enough to buy some food, which fills me up enough. However, if I do a well done job, I would still get enough to buy some food, which doesn't fill me up because of all the energy I used in the job.

In a communist country, all the needs of the people would have to ether be free or at very low cost.

But even then you have the wants of the people too.

So thus the need for money has to be gone.
How do you do this?
First, we would need an unlimit supply of all resources, and it has to be easy to obtain and easy to manufacture.

Robots would have to do all the hard work, like mining, building, shipping, farming, ect. Non-self aweare robots.

A fule like the sun would have to be used for energy. One that is limitless in any near time.
So cars would never need to refule.

So like if you want a car, just search the car you want and have it materialize in your garage. All free.

We take away any lacking of needs and wants, and then we can start to help the whole.

Until then we cant, and the system we have now does it's job till then.

---

Good in theory but horrible in reality. If people where free of corruption and bad-ness in general it would work. But that will never happen.

---

The political philosophy that has caused the death of more than 150,000,000 people was actually created as a rant as a result of the author having a skin disease.

---

Yes, communism would work if we were all robots, but everyone wants a piece of the profits and thus, corruption. Also, people would want to control others, which you can't do in Communism, so people would try to take over, as well as try to make a handsome profit doing it.

---

At 9/21/08 10:43 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: COMMUNISM AND TRUE COMMUNISM DOES NOT WORK FACT!

But communism works*.

*Except in the Soviet Union, Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia.

---

At 9/22/08 06:50 PM, Slizor wrote: Wow, starting with an arrogant generalisation is really coming out swinging.

What can I say? Foolish and naeive world views get the better of me.

No they haven't (a generalisation can only be answered thusly.)

A generalisation perhaps but I defy you to find a discourse arguing against instinct. The concept of Tabula Rasa does not consider it at all, one of its many flaws, and so is hardly a fitting example.

For example, one of the largest debates has been over there being a set human nature or not: nature or nuture. This isn't a finer point, this is a vital point that defines the entire debate.

I would argue the nature vs. nurture debate is more of an over-arching, umbrella debate than an actual discussion in to the nature of humanity. Largely because it concerns the impetus as opposed to how it translates in to behaviour and encompasses many different fields.

I'm going to chalk this sentence up to youthful arrogant ignorance. Or maybe even ignorant arrogance. I will obviously offer better responses when not having to deal with gross unthinking generalisations that show as much intellectual subtly as a statement from Boris Johnson.

So you're suggesting that there exist people who do not feel that they 'own' something? The native tribes of the Americas, completely isolated from the developed imperialism and dynastic culture of western civilisation STILL had a concept of ownership.

Oh goodo, evolutionary biology and history. You're making two rather large logic jumps: making the motivation for acquistion as greed (in effect using a thick rationality model) and equating the actions of states and soceities with individuals.

Evolutionary biology and history are very closely related once goes back far enough; if we hold it to be true then it contains within the basic motivations for our individual behaviour and societal structures. To suggest I hold 'greed' as the basic motivation is to miscomprehend; I hold instinctual urge to collect as this initial impulse. It isn't greedy to provide for yourself or loved ones and protect what you have gained.

You seem to be establishing an argument for possessions, not for a model of greedy human nature. Do you know much about mutualism?

I am arguing for possessions, my word you are observant. This concept, however, largely goes against the doctrine of communal living. Mutualism isn't in the spirit of communism either and is more of anarchic system that, to my mind, would cause even more suffering than true laissez-faire capitalism.

I wasn't using an appeal to authority: an appeal to authority would, for example, have been me saying that Human Nature is a blank slate and quoting John Locke. I was provided examples of the point that there has been, and is, a huge debate on human nature. And again, your argument is misaimed - you are trying to prove a greedy human nature, not the existence of possessions in human societies.

You were appealing to authority in that you were implying that if these greats minds argue it then surely it is not our place to have set ideas. Oh and don't tell me what I'm arguing, I'm clearly establishing a case for a concept of ownership which is in itself enough to put a spoke in the wheels of communist doctrine.

Global capitalism has changed little, it has just concentrated its workshops in the third world.

Which, too, will develop. Capitalism can only work within the pressures of a set economy and the global economy is not yet advanced enough to exert enough impetus for change; as these nations grow richer and develop however things WILL improve. Also, I must say, I find it rather ironic that you're arguing the plight of sweatshop workers when the worst offender is China which is an avowedly communist country. While admittedly communist in name and despotism only it does mean that the workers have no opportunity to dissent.

Hahaha. Merits "and" perseverance - that's your get out clause. That people tend to be bound by the social class they were born in is due to a lack of "perseverance"...clearly.

That's the principle capitalism is founded upon and the existance of the nomenklatura and party priveleges within Soviet Russia shows that it is more pervasive than you would seem to hope. Oh and people are not bound by their class; someone with enough drive or talent can climb that greasiest of ladders. That some don't most likely arises from pressures within the family to conform or simple fatalism.

I was talking about the economic system, not the government system. The confusion is yours.

It isn't an economic system; much in the same way democracy isn't. The suffix 'cracy' means 'related to governance'.

Firstly, not my government.

My apologies; after awhile I find one assumes everyone else is American.

Secondly, it is not a socialist principle to nationalise only those private businesses that are failing - providing help for those capitalist gamblers that were losing their money. It is certainly not up my street.

They had to nationalise the ones that failed or the economy would have seriously suffered. The very rich owners of these banks would not have been as devestated as John Doe and Mary Sue the lower-middle class citizens with a mortgage to pay; it was necessary in my eyes but governmental interferance is a socialist principle whether you believe a shadowy cabal of bankers rules the world or no.

*Yawn*. This is nothing more than a statement of belief premised upon your views of incentives and human nature.

No it's based upon the very real disillusionment workers in Soviet Russia endured through most of the regime's economic policies (other than the NEP, that worked rather well but that's hardly an arguement for communism); quality of consumer products plummeted. With no incentive to work harder and very strict deadlines quality is inevitably going to suffer.

Meritocracy is not a word limited to governmental systems.

I'm afraid it is, any other application is a conceit.

Regardless, my point was that capitalism claims to be meritocratic - that people get what they deserve.

I would argue that it is that they CAN get what they deserve provided they are willing to put in the effort rather than an absoloute truth; no economic system is flawless.

This sentence doesn't make any sense.

Yes it is a tad run-on; it's two seperate clauses: that is is ridiculous to suggest that people should not be hired based upon ability and it is ridiculous to suggest that the principle of competitve employment is flawed.

HAH. You kids really make me laugh some times. You really sound like a public school boy.

I'm not sure whether to suggest it would be better for all of us if your wit were capable of making anyone laugh or to point out that hiding behind your age is a poorly-veiled appeal to authority. You seem very keen on these, do you lack critical thinking of your own?

To quote oneself in such a manner is childish and arrogant. I know, I used to do it.

It is pretentious stylistically speaking, true, but that doesn't mean a point is not valid nor that insulting someone so bluntly is justified.

You speak out of turn, boy.

You speak out of your posterior, bolshie.

Shameless, I know, but I can resist everything barring temptation.

---

Wow, starting with an arrogant generalisation is really coming out swinging.

What can I say? Foolish and naeive world views get the better of me.

Clearly overwhelming you to the point that you adopt them. I guess that public school must have buggered such bad traits into you from an early age.

No they haven't (a generalisation can only be answered thusly.)

A generalisation perhaps but I defy you to find a discourse arguing against instinct.

Why would I bother? You have yet to make a watertight argument for acquistion being a human instinct. What you have done is point to "the whole of human history" (yet another gross generalisation) and hunter-gatherer societies and then said that acquistion is an instinct. I could equally point to exactly the same things and say that the idea of property was a useful tool in the creation of primative societies and thus prospered. That would mean that it has been integral to human societies, but is not necessarily integral to human nature.

Your argument is really quite poorly defined as well. What exactly does an instinct for acquistion mean? What are its limits? Is there a point where people are satisified? It could be that, once properly defined, your view on a instinct for acquisition poses no problem for my views.

The concept of Tabula Rasa does not consider it at all, one of its many flaws, and so is hardly a fitting example.

Hahaha. I love this. Because it is "flawed" - in that it is an argument that does not address your viewpoint - it should not be used as an example of the diversity of views on the issue of human nature.

Sorry, but selective use of information isn't the basis of a sound argument.

For example, one of the largest debates has been over there being a set human nature or not: nature or nuture. This isn't a finer point, this is a vital point that defines the entire debate.

I would argue the nature vs. nurture debate is more of an over-arching, umbrella debate than an actual discussion in to the nature of humanity.

You would argue that the question of the flexibility of human nature is not part of the debate on human nature? I'd like to see the logical somersaults you use to achieve that.

Regardless, this doesn't back up your bullshit generalisation that the debate on human nature is over the finer points.

I'm going to chalk this sentence up to youthful arrogant ignorance. Or maybe even ignorant arrogance. I will obviously offer better responses when not having to deal with gross unthinking generalisations that show as much intellectual subtly as a statement from Boris Johnson.

So you're suggesting that there exist people who do not feel that they 'own' something?

No, I'm saying that the debate on human nature does include the issue of acquisition and property and that it is not something that is taken for granted.

Oh goodo, evolutionary biology and history. You're making two rather large logic jumps: making the motivation for acquistion as greed (in effect using a thick rationality model) and equating the actions of states and soceities with individuals.

Evolutionary biology and history are very closely related once goes back far enough; if we hold it to be true then it contains within the basic motivations for our individual behaviour and societal structures. To suggest I hold 'greed' as the basic motivation is to miscomprehend; I hold instinctual urge to collect as this initial impulse. It isn't greedy to provide for yourself or loved ones and protect what you have gained.

You seem to be establishing an argument for possessions, not for a model of greedy human nature. Do you know much about mutualism?

I am arguing for possessions, my word you are observant.

Then you have missed the original points and inserted an argument of your own. If you so desperately wanted to debate me you could have done so without trying to defend the stupidity of another with your own stupidity.

This concept, however, largely goes against the doctrine of communal living. Mutualism isn't in the spirit of communism either and is more of anarchic system that, to my mind, would cause even more suffering than true laissez-faire capitalism.

I asked you if you knew anything about mutualism, I did not relate it to communism. I asked because I was wondering what you thought about the mutualist view on property.

I wasn't using an appeal to authority: an appeal to authority would, for example, have been me saying that Human Nature is a blank slate and quoting John Locke. I was provided examples of the point that there has been, and is, a huge debate on human nature. And again, your argument is misaimed - you are trying to prove a greedy human nature, not the existence of possessions in human societies.

You were appealing to authority in that you were implying that if these greats minds argue it then surely it is not our place to have set ideas.

No. I argued that holding such a poorly thought out view on human nature as gospel truth when there exists a huge debate on the subject (as demonstrated by the reference to Plato, etc) is pathetic.

Oh and don't tell me what I'm arguing,

Haha. I love this, the sentence before sees you attempting to tell me what my own argument is and then this comes along.

I'm clearly establishing a case for a concept of ownership which is in itself enough to put a spoke in the wheels of communist doctrine.

No, you're poorly attempting to establish an ill-defined "instinct of acquisition" whose impact on communist doctrine (another thing that is yet to be defined or discussed: people always seem to want to attribute views to me that I haven't mentioned) is yet to be seen.

Global capitalism has changed little, it has just concentrated its workshops in the third world.

Which, too, will develop.

Belief.

Also, I must say, I find it rather ironic that you're arguing the plight of sweatshop workers when the worst offender is China which is an avowedly communist country. While admittedly communist in name and despotism only it does mean that the workers have no opportunity to dissent.

Why do you find it ironic? Have I said I am a Maoist (or, more to the point, a Dengist)? Have I, in fact, said that I am a communist or a supporter of China and the former Soviet Union?

No, they are your assumptions.

---

Hahaha. Merits "and" perseverance - that's your get out clause. That people tend to be bound by the social class they were born in is due to a lack of "perseverance"...clearly.

That's the principle capitalism is founded upon

Capitalism wasn't founded, it developed.

and the existance of the nomenklatura and party priveleges within Soviet Russia shows that it is more pervasive than you would seem to hope.

Not really. I don't really consider the USSR as a prime example of Communism, or even an example of my beliefs.

Oh and people are not bound by their class; someone with enough drive or talent can climb that greasiest of ladders.

With a bit of luck, there are examples of that. However, there are far far more examples of people born into families at the top of the ladder staying at the top of the ladder.

That some don't most likely arises from pressures within the family to conform or simple fatalism.

HAHAHA. Such belief in the system is really quite lamentable.

Sadly your argument has to become a lot better if its going to account for the fact that the social democratic systems of Northern Europe (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) have far greater economic mobility than the more free market countries like the US and UK.

I was talking about the economic system, not the government system. The confusion is yours.

It isn't an economic system; much in the same way democracy isn't. The suffix 'cracy' means 'related to governance'.

No, -cracy comes from the Greek kratia, meaning rule. Democracy is literally demos (people) kratia (rule). With a number of examples the -cracy words do refer to types of government, but they are not confined to only describing systems of government. Take, for example, pornocracy, which refers to the influence of prostitutes on the papal court in the 10th century.

Now if we can please move on from your attempt to score points with semantics to the actual issues at hand.

Firstly, not my government.

My apologies; after awhile I find one assumes everyone else is American.

You really need to get out if all your human contact is with Americans on the internet.

Secondly, it is not a socialist principle to nationalise only those private businesses that are failing - providing help for those capitalist gamblers that were losing their money. It is certainly not up my street.

They had to nationalise the ones that failed or the economy would have seriously suffered.

That is free market capitalism. To not take the good with the bad is to reveal their lack of belief in the market and their bare faced hypocrisy when arguing for a global free market.

but governmental interferance is a socialist principle whether you believe a shadowy cabal of bankers rules the world or no.

Government intervention in the economy is also Keynesian. It is a stupid argument to make unless you are trying to claim that actions are only Capitalist or Socialist (which, binary as it is, is also a stupid argument to make.)

*Yawn*. This is nothing more than a statement of belief premised upon your views of incentives and human nature.

No it's based upon the very real disillusionment workers in Soviet Russia endured through most of the regime's economic policies (other than the NEP, that worked rather well but that's hardly an arguement for communism); quality of consumer products plummeted.

Oh, is this a history debate? I hadn't realised that you wanted to talk about Soviet Russia - you should probably go and find someone who is supportive of those types of regimes if you want a discussion.

With no incentive to work harder and very strict deadlines quality is inevitably going to suffer.

There is no need for the "no incentive to work harder" to be included. The Soviet Union's quality of production can easily be explained by overuse of the stick on its own.

Regardless, my point was that capitalism claims to be meritocratic - that people get what they deserve.

I would argue that it is that they CAN get what they deserve provided they are willing to put in the effort rather than an absoloute truth; no economic system is flawless.

It's a major flaw to have such vast inequalities. You speak about Capitalism as if people aren't earning millions of pounds a year while others earn less than a pound a day.

This sentence doesn't make any sense.

Yes it is a tad run-on; it's two seperate clauses: that is is ridiculous to suggest that people should not be hired based upon ability and it is ridiculous to suggest that the principle of competitve employment is flawed.

It was not a tad run-on, it didn't make sense, particularly "shouldn't be is ridiculous". Anyhow, I have not questioned either of those practices.

HAH. You kids really make me laugh some times. You really sound like a public school boy.

I'm not sure whether to suggest it would be better for all of us if your wit were capable of making anyone laugh or to point out that hiding behind your age is a poorly-veiled appeal to authority. You seem very keen on these, do you lack critical thinking of your own?

You seem insistent on seeing fallacies where there are none. Guess that's just the scars of a public school education.

To quote oneself in such a manner is childish and arrogant. I know, I used to do it.

It is pretentious stylistically speaking, true, but that doesn't mean a point is not valid nor that insulting someone so bluntly is justified.

The quote was wrapped in arrogance, said little and meant less, and was deserving of anything thrown at it. I work on a system of merit.

You speak out of turn, boy.

You speak out of your posterior, bolshie.

Bolshie? Jesus, that's a wild assumption from you.

Shameless, I know, but I can resist everything barring temptation

Hypocrisy seems to be a big temptation for you then.

---

At 9/24/08 09:07 AM, Slizor wrote: Clearly overwhelming you to the point that you adopt them. I guess that public school must have buggered such bad traits into you from an early age.

Yes, damn me and my observations on history and how Marx was incorrect in mostly everything he wrote.

Why would I bother? You have yet to make a watertight argument for acquistion being a human instinct. What you have done is point to "the whole of human history" (yet another gross generalisation) and hunter-gatherer societies and then said that acquistion is an instinct.

It is not a gross over generalisation to point at the history of human development and the necessary role acquisition plays in hunter-gatherer socieities and then state, quite comfortably, that a sense of ownership has played an integral role in the course of events. It is as hard-wired in to us as 'murder is bad'.

I could equally point to exactly the same things and say that the idea of property was a useful tool in the creation of primative societies and thus prospered. That would mean that it has been integral to human societies, but is not necessarily integral to human nature.

A point well made but you then assume that the two are mutually exclusive; I'd argue that society has arisen the way it has because of human nature.

Your argument is really quite poorly defined as well. What exactly does an instinct for acquistion mean? What are its limits? Is there a point where people are satisified? It could be that, once properly defined, your view on a instinct for acquisition poses no problem for my views.

Poorly defined? Consider the words 'an instinct for acquisition' and I believe your answers are satisfied. To spell it out: people want things. The easier it is to get things the better. People feel entitled to items they have acquired. People are willing to protect what they have acquired. An instinct cannot be 'satisfied' and so the urge to improve one's lot never ceases, merely differs from person to person on a continuum.

Hahaha. I love this. Because it is "flawed" - in that it is an argument that does not address your viewpoint - it should not be used as an example of the diversity of views on the issue of human nature.

The theory of Tabula Rasa is flawed as it is discredited by instinctual urges; of which we have many. I wasn't arguing that it isn't an example of the diversity of views, I'm stating that it is not an example of an arguement addressing instincts as it doesn't. This is the crux of your arguement; if you cannot prove that the discussion on human nature has ever disproved instinct then you cannot state to another person their views on an instinctual impulse are wrong due to the existance of an ongoing debate.

Sorry, but selective use of information isn't the basis of a sound argument.

Selective in that something that does not take in to account my arguement cannot be used to disprove my arguement? One might as well state 'the sky is blue' as a rebuttal, then.

I would argue the nature vs. nurture debate is more of an over-arching, umbrella debate than an actual discussion in to the nature of humanity.

You would argue that the question of the flexibility of human nature is not part of the debate on human nature? I'd like to see the logical somersaults you use to achieve that.

It's not the flexibility though, is it? It's a debate on the origin of our behaviour but not the behaviour itself. If you're going to use it to adress the implied point on whether behaviour can be changed do so but don't be so dishonest as to include it as evidence for a raging debate in to human behavioural systems when it is concerning their genesis, little else.

Do argue preemptively the 'nurture' arguement is not as strong as it was twenty years ago; better understanding of the brain and how it to relates to the many fields has weakened it considerably. Suffice it to say the existance of certain aspects of behaviour controlled by biological mechanisms are demonstrably proven.

Regardless, this doesn't back up your bullshit generalisation that the debate on human nature is over the finer points.

Much in the same way mentioning it didn't support your arguement that philosophers have ever discussed what is taken for granted as part of the human experience.

No, I'm saying that the debate on human nature does include the issue of acquisition and property and that it is not something that is taken for granted.

The burden of proof is yours; show me any of your 'greats' who reasonably and intelligently discussed whether people felt entitled to ownership.

Then you have missed the original points and inserted an argument of your own. If you so desperately wanted to debate me you could have done so without trying to defend the stupidity of another with your own stupidity.

You've skated over my arguement rather. To adress this, however, we are arguing fundamentally the same thing he just titles it 'greed' and I title it 'instinctual acquisition'. This is so that you cannot exploit the negative connotations (and denotation, for that matter) of 'greed' to show how, deep down, we all just want to get along.

I asked you if you knew anything about mutualism, I did not relate it to communism. I asked because I was wondering what you thought about the mutualist view on property.

I assumed you had as you are defending communism. How silly of me. This isn't particularly relevant to the topic at hand but I personally feel that land owners do provide a service to the economy, albeit a passive one, and without an incentive of profit one of the driving factors of development will be lost.

No. I argued that holding such a poorly thought out view on human nature as gospel truth when there exists a huge debate on the subject (as demonstrated by the reference to Plato, etc) is pathetic.

That is exactly the same as I wrote but with thinly-vieled rationalisation and some pejoratives thrown in for good measure (that is, in your own personal style).

Haha. I love this, the sentence before sees you attempting to tell me what my own argument is and then this comes along.

I'm not telling you what you are arguing, I am stating that your arguement is fallacious because it appeals to authority. There is a considerable difference between that and literally misinterpreting my point.

No, you're poorly attempting to establish an ill-defined "instinct of acquisition" whose impact on communist doctrine (another thing that is yet to be defined or discussed: people always seem to want to attribute views to me that I haven't mentioned) is yet to be seen.

Firstly you are in a thread defending communism attacking its detractors; this puts you on the 'pro-communism' table. If you want to argue your own particular views I suggest you make a topic discussing them (something you would enjoy, I'm sure). Failing that at least define your own views before accusing others of doing the same. If you fail to percieve how an instinct to acquire property of your very own is incongruous with the concept of communal living or Marx's beliefs that people can change then you are quite beyond help.

Belief.

Based upon historical observation.

Why do you find it ironic? Have I said I am a Maoist (or, more to the point, a Dengist)? Have I, in fact, said that I am a communist or a supporter of China and the former Soviet Union?

Again, you're in a thread that is pro-communism and defending it. You're tarred by association and must either play devil's advocate or stop insulting others for just not 'getting you' (because there must be ever so much to get).

No, they are your assumptions.

I'll reppeat it once more for good measure: I'm attacking communism, not your own particular views as they are not relevant in a thread concerning traditional communist doctrine and how it is flawed.

---

At 9/24/08 09:16 AM, Slizor wrote: Capitalism wasn't founded, it developed.

It's a figure of speech you dolt.

Not really. I don't really consider the USSR as a prime example of Communism, or even an example of my beliefs.

You do love talking about your beliefs don't you? The hypocracy of accusing me of selectively chosing evidence and then discounting any opposing evidence simply because it is not germane with your personal world view is quite astonishing.

With a bit of luck, there are examples of that. However, there are far far more examples of people born into families at the top of the ladder staying at the top of the ladder.

The point still holds that capitalism removes the very real block that existed beforehand; all that remains is impotent snobbery.

HAHAHA. Such belief in the system is really quite lamentable.

I believe that people can improve their lot if they are naturally gifted or determined because capitalism allows this to occur. If you consider this false actually state it instead of feeding me that tired, socialist rhetoric that sounds increasingly hollow sorrounded as I am by modern amenities.

Sadly your argument has to become a lot better if its going to account for the fact that the social democratic systems of Northern Europe (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) have far greater economic mobility than the more free market countries like the US and UK.

They have greater mobility because the markets are under artificial control; say what you wish about the soviet union if it wanted tractors by god it had tractors. That does not mean it is a prosperous system because of its socialist aspects (the spirit of the free market remains in Northern Europe, don't pretend otherwise) or one that is in the best interests of the consumer.

No, -cracy comes from the Greek kratia, meaning rule. Democracy is literally demos (people) kratia (rule).

I am well aware of its root, I tailored my explanation it to its more modern meaning.

With a number of examples the -cracy words do refer to types of government, but they are not confined to only describing systems of government. Take, for example, pornocracy, which refers to the influence of prostitutes on the papal court in the 10th century.

Which was used in the metaphorical sense (personally I hold it to be a conceit here also) to suggest that prostitutes held considerable political influence.

Now if we can please move on from your attempt to score points with semantics to the actual issues at hand.

You replied to the semantics arguement and yet did not assert that meritocracy is a recognised system of economics; I wish you would stop accusing me of what you're most blatantly guilty of.

You really need to get out if all your human contact is with Americans on the internet.

Alternatively I assume most are American on this website because it is an America-based website populated mainly by Americans. Stop being peurile and casting rather unwitty aspersions against my character; either insult me with flair or be damned.

That is free market capitalism. To not take the good with the bad is to reveal their lack of belief in the market and their bare faced hypocrisy when arguing for a global free market.

No, it is an earnest attempt to assuage the situation. No economic system is flawless because people are flawed; accordingly one must act to set failures aright. It is not hypocritical to maintain the spirit of the free market but doing what one must to adapt; even Adam Smith advocated some restrictions.

Government intervention in the economy is also Keynesian.

Which is a branch of socialist economics.

It is a stupid argument to make unless you are trying to claim that actions are only Capitalist or Socialist (which, binary as it is, is also a stupid argument to make.)

I am using hyponymy as we are discussing the general merits/demerits of capitalism and communism.

Oh, is this a history debate? I hadn't realised that you wanted to talk about Soviet Russia - you should probably go and find someone who is supportive of those types of regimes if you want a discussion.

Mayhap you should avoid debates about communism if you do not want Russia's ugliest of bugbears to rear its foul head. I'll just point out your hypocrisy in dismissing an arguement because you do not feel its applicable to your precious opinions once more (please no more, I need to maintain my figure if I'm to fit into the Etonian society you foolishly ascribe to me).

There is no need for the "no incentive to work harder" to be included. The Soviet Union's quality of production can easily be explained by overuse of the stick on its own.

Which would apply soley to the workers: if the businesses that paid them had the incentive of competition the quality of products would have been of a higher standard regardless (not to mention the workers would leave to be employed by a fairer competitor).

It's a major flaw to have such vast inequalities. You speak about Capitalism as if people aren't earning millions of pounds a year while others earn less than a pound a day.

Unless the people earning less than a pound are from another country (an issue already addressed) there exists opportunities to improve their lot. No system is flawless but I'd rather have one that allowed social mobility than one that did not.

This sentence doesn't make any sense.

Yes it is a tad run-on; it's two seperate clauses: that is is ridiculous to suggest that people should not be hired based upon ability and it is ridiculous to suggest that the principle of competitve employment is flawed.

It was not a tad run-on, it didn't make sense, particularly "shouldn't be is ridiculous". Anyhow, I have not questioned either of those practices.

You did in your ill-thought tirade against a 'meritocracy'. People are hired on their merits, 'tis true, but to suggest (as you did) that this was a bad thing was ridiculous. Oh and you aren't reading it correctly then: it isn't 'shouldn't be is ridiculous' it is 'to argue that people should not be hired and paid depending upon their ability or the principle that in a competitive system those less able will fall shouldn't be' - 'is ridiculous'.

You seem insistent on seeing fallacies where there are none. Guess that's just the scars of a public school education.

I'd argue that the stubborn insistence that nothing you have said is remotely fallacious a much more public-school boy trait than simple analysis. I'm unsure as to whether to correct you on that account; while it is highly edifying to hear you rant and rave about my percieved class there is also a tinge of that pathetic rebellious attitude that I find irritating in twelve year olds let alone my supposed elders.

The quote was wrapped in arrogance, said little and meant less, and was deserving of anything thrown at it. I work on a system of merit.

I do hope that was supposed to dripping in irony, I really do.

Bolshie? Jesus, that's a wild assumption from you.

I assume nothing; I was simply following your lead by throwing random vituperatives and hoping one lands.

Hypocrisy seems to be a big temptation for you then.

I was well aware of the hypocisy, that's why I called it shameless. The only thing worse than an avowed sinner and realist is a social critic who cannot critique himself.

---

Socialism in general will only work if you have a large country in land mass, but somewhere around 100,000 to 10 million in population. Thats why it fails everywhere else.

---

Some points have been cut from this because I'm not going to get into a three post response on repitions.

Yes, damn me and my observations on history and how Marx was incorrect in mostly everything he wrote.

We haven't even discussed Marx. We haven't even really discussed history. Mostly we've discussed human nature (or, as you insist on calling it to obscure your points "instinctive acquisition".

It is not a gross over generalisation to point at the history of human development and the necessary role acquisition plays in hunter-gatherer socieities and then state, quite comfortably, that a sense of ownership has played an integral role in the course of events.

It would still be a gross generalisation to point to "the whole of human history", but yes, apart from over-egging the role of acquisition in hunter-gatherer societies (who, by any standards, had few material possessions and lived fairly egalitarian lives) you could point to the "history of human development" and make that argument without much difficulty. It wouldn't really be saying much and would be very open to historical counter-examples, but you could manage it.

It is as hard-wired in to us as 'murder is bad'.

But you can't manage that. You've moved from a correlation to a cause. Where's the proof? On this vital point you've out on a limb of belief.

Furthermore, considering the many many murders that have occurred in wars/cannibal societies/everyday life I think your argument for "murder is bad" being hardwired into humans has many problems.

A point well made but you then assume that the two are mutually exclusive; I'd argue that society has arisen the way it has because of human nature.

And I would counter by pointing to the vast diversity in human societies prior to imperialism and globalisation (which have acted as forces of homogenisation.) Or I would point to your undefined Human Nature, get you to properly propound it and then criticise it fully.

Poorly defined? Consider the words 'an instinct for acquisition' and I believe your answers are satisfied. To spell it out: people want things. The easier it is to get things the better. People feel entitled to items they have acquired. People are willing to protect what they have acquired. An instinct cannot be 'satisfied' and so the urge to improve one's lot never ceases, merely differs from person to person on a continuum.

Yes, poorly defined. You've now provided some more information (it is variable and it is continuous) but it's still not well defined.

Anyhow, I think that "the urge to improve one's lot" is generated by a very superficial and modern reading of history. In fact, you do seem to project modern ideas about property on to your view of history

The theory of Tabula Rasa is flawed as it is discredited by instinctual urges; of which we have many.

Based on your usage of instinctual urges you appear to be saying little more than Tabula Rasa is flawed because you disagree with it.

I wasn't arguing that it isn't an example of the diversity of views, I'm stating that it is not an example of an arguement addressing instincts as it doesn't. This is the crux of your arguement; if you cannot prove that the discussion on human nature has ever disproved instinct then you cannot state to another person their views on an instinctual impulse are wrong due to the existance of an ongoing debate.

It's not the crux of my argument, it's the crux of the argument you think you have with me. You entered into a debate about human nature - the points were not your own. Now you try to meld what I have said in response to others to your argument. You're either confused or dishonest.

Anyhow, you've used "instinctual urges" and "human nature" interchangeably and it seems little more than an attempt to obscure the point. You're now asking for me to find a rebuttal to your particular phraseology in philosophy texts - that's insane, they will not have mentioned your views by the same name that you have.

It's not the flexibility though, is it? It's a debate on the origin of our behaviour but not the behaviour itself.

It is flexibility. It is a debate on how much (how flexible they are) people can depart from their "instinctual urges" (read: human nature) or if, in fact, any instinctual urges exist at all.

The burden of proof is yours; show me any of your 'greats' who reasonably and intelligently discussed whether people felt entitled to ownership.

Again, insanity. You require of me to find works of others that directly talk about your views. Such arrogance is astounding, you think that you've come up with an argument that everyone else has missed, that it is original and brilliant. It's not, it's a fudge and it has little evidence backing it up.

Have philosophers discussed if people are naturally greedy? Yes. Have they mentioned "whether people felt entitled to ownership" (which as you mention below, is the same as greed) specifically? No, I haven't encountered it.

This is so that you cannot exploit the negative connotations (and denotation, for that matter) of 'greed' to show how, deep down, we all just want to get along.

You've done that to obscure the point and forward your own little view.

I assumed you had as you are defending communism. How silly of me. This isn't particularly relevant to the topic at hand but I personally feel that land owners do provide a service to the economy, albeit a passive one, and without an incentive of profit one of the driving factors of development will be lost.

I asked about the mutualist view on property - Proudhon, "property is theft", etc. Not about landowners. And it is relevant.

That is exactly the same as I wrote but with thinly-vieled rationalisation and some pejoratives thrown in for good measure (that is, in your own personal style).

No, in yours my argument is an appeal to authority, in mine they are examples.

I'm not telling you what you are arguing, I am stating that your arguement is fallacious because it appeals to authority. There is a considerable difference between that and literally misinterpreting my point.

No, you're misinterpreting my point to make it fallacious.

Firstly you are in a thread defending communism attacking its detractors; this puts you on the 'pro-communism' table.

I am on a thread putting forward my own views, as everyone else was. That puts me firmly on the "Pro-Slizor" table.

If you want to argue your own particular views I suggest you make a topic discussing them (something you would enjoy, I'm sure).

A thread is not a set debate, it never has been and never will be. It's a point of discussion that generates responses that can go in any direction they choose.

Failing that at least define your own views before accusing others of doing the same. If you fail to percieve how an instinct to acquire property of your very own is incongruous with the concept of communal living or Marx's beliefs that people can change then you are quite beyond help.

It would come down to how much sway that instinct held over human behaviour - about how flexible human nature was. It would also come down to what we considered property, which is something Proudhon discusses and why I brought the point up.

Belief.

Based upon historical observation.

Based on historical observation coloured by belief. Anyhow, there's an appalling argument - your view is based upon "historical observation". That could deployed in any argument, by anyone. What makes you so special?

Again, you're in a thread that is pro-communism and defending it.

Actually, I was criticising the weakness of the criticisms levelled at Communism. That doesn't mean I'm defending Communism.

---

Continued.

You also seem to have a fairly neat little definition of what Communism is and what Communism isn't (and what a Communist is and what a Communist isn't.) Must a Communist associate themselves with Stalin or Mao?

You're tarred by association and must either play devil's advocate or stop insulting others for just not 'getting you' (because there must be ever so much to get).

If you desire to go hell for leather with an avowed Marxist I suggest you go and find one. You can then drive each other insane by grounding your views in historical "facts" and inserting beliefs in every nook and cranny.

No, they are your assumptions.

I'll reppeat it once more for good measure: I'm attacking communism, not your own particular views as they are not relevant in a thread concerning traditional communist doctrine and how it is flawed.

Threads aren't limited and defined - these aren't debates on set topics. Anyhow, you responded to my views to begin with. If you wanted to "attack Communism" you could have just made a post laying out your theory of "instinctive acquisition" and how it counters Communist doctrine. At which point with your view fully elaborated on rather than coming on in drips and drabs and with words used to obscure points, I would have ripped it to shreds.

If you do not wish to debate my viewpoint, I suggest you don't try to debate me.

At 9/24/08 11:27 AM, Pontificate wrote:

At 9/24/08 09:16 AM, Slizor wrote: Capitalism wasn't founded, it developed.

It's a figure of speech you dolt.

A figure of speech that was vital to your point.

Not really. I don't really consider the USSR as a prime example of Communism, or even an example of my beliefs.

You do love talking about your beliefs don't you? The hypocracy of accusing me of selectively chosing evidence and then discounting any opposing evidence simply because it is not germane with your personal world view is quite astonishing.

Not really. There are many avowed Communists who do not consider Stalinist or Maoism as the real thing, as Marx likely would have considering they both missed out on the Capitalist stage.

With a bit of luck, there are examples of that. However, there are far far more examples of people born into families at the top of the ladder staying at the top of the ladder.

The point still holds that capitalism removes the very real block that existed beforehand; all that remains is impotent snobbery.

See below about economic mobility.

They have greater mobility because the markets are under artificial control; say what you wish about the soviet union if it wanted tractors by god it had tractors.

You missed the point. Economic mobility refers to the ability of an individual to move between economic classes.

No, -cracy comes from the Greek kratia, meaning rule. Democracy is literally demos (people) kratia (rule).

I am well aware of its root, I tailored my explanation it to its more modern meaning.

No, you provided an imprecise definition then called my use a conceit. Don't try and bullshit me with your "more modern meaning".

Which was used in the metaphorical sense (personally I hold it to be a conceit here also) to suggest that prostitutes held considerable political influence.

But is not a system of government and thus invalidates your limited definition.

You replied to the semantics arguement and yet did not assert that meritocracy is a recognised system of economics; I wish you would stop accusing me of what you're most blatantly guilty of.

It's not a recognised system of economics, it's a feature of an economic system. Sorry if you did not understand that but the point was obvious.

Alternatively I assume most are American on this website because it is an America-based website populated mainly by Americans. Stop being peurile and casting rather unwitty aspersions against my character; either insult me with flair or be damned.

Oh please. I suppose you consider "you dolt" the height of wit.

No, it is an earnest attempt to assuage the situation.

If the US government believed in free market capitalism as they say they do (particularly in the WTO) then it is an earnest attempt to destroy the American economy.

Which is a branch of socialist economics.

No, it's a liberal branch of economics. Keynes was not a socialist.

I am using hyponymy as we are discussing the general merits/demerits of capitalism and communism.

You do like defining the debate don't you? (Seems to be the other thing you'll clearly define) I thought you were supposed to be attacking Communism and I defending it.

Which would apply soley to the workers: if the businesses that paid them had the incentive of competition the quality of products would have been of a higher standard regardless (not to mention the workers would leave to be employed by a fairer competitor).

Business owners also had the stick heavily applied. They were forced to fill unrealistic production quotas that required them to focus on numbers rather than quality.

Unless the people earning less than a pound are from another country (an issue already addressed) there exists opportunities to improve their lot. No system is flawless but I'd rather have one that allowed social mobility than one that did not.

I refer you back to the point on economic mobility.

You did in your ill-thought tirade against a 'meritocracy'. People are hired on their merits, 'tis true, but to suggest (as you did) that this was a bad thing was ridiculous.

No I didn't. Show me where.

Oh and you aren't reading it correctly then: it isn't 'shouldn't be is ridiculous' it is 'to argue that people should not be hired and paid depending upon their ability or the principle that in a competitive system those less able will fall shouldn't be' - 'is ridiculous'.

Clearly, instead of you getting on your high horse, claiming that people are reading things wrongly and condescendingly trying to explain your sentences, you need to learn how to punctuate.

You seem insistent on seeing fallacies where there are none. Guess that's just the scars of a public school education.

I'd argue that the stubborn insistence that nothing you have said is remotely fallacious a much more public-school boy trait than simple analysis.

How very droll. Public school isn't really an option for me; I'm too old and I'm far too qualified for them to offer anything.

I'm unsure as to whether to correct you on that account; while it is highly edifying to hear you rant and rave about my percieved class there is also a tinge of that pathetic rebellious attitude that I find irritating in twelve year olds let alone my supposed elders.

I said nothing about your perceived class, I was talking about where you spend your daytimes based on your continued ignorant smugness.

I assume nothing; I was simply following your lead by throwing random vituperatives and hoping one lands.

You consider Bolshie insulting? I thought you were trying to be descriptive! Fucking hell you really are crap at insulting people.

I was well aware of the hypocisy, that's why I called it shameless.

Shame you're not aware of the hypocrisy in the rest of your post.

---

At 9/25/08 07:40 AM, Slizor wrote: We haven't even discussed Marx. We haven't even really discussed history. Mostly we've discussed human nature (or, as you insist on calling it to obscure your points "instinctive acquisition".

I wasn't referring to this debate per se; simply defending my views on capitalism to which you called naieve. Oh and how is meaning obscured? Interpret it as you would a phrase as opposed to a machiavellian device to confound you and the mists shall clear.

It would still be a gross generalisation to point to "the whole of human history",

Hyperbolic perhaps but not as severe as you seem to imply; if it was you couldn't have agreed.

but yes, apart from over-egging the role of acquisition in hunter-gatherer societies (who, by any standards, had few material possessions and lived fairly egalitarian lives)

I'm suggesting a root cause for this behaviour; I'm not suggesting they wore suits and spent their time developing a rudimentary banking system.

you could point to the "history of human development" and make that argument without much difficulty. It wouldn't really be saying much and would be very open to historical counter-examples, but you could manage it.

It would provide considerable evidence that human history revolved around acquisition and that societies that did not failed; this suggests that an idea of ownership has been around for as long as we have. Ergo communism is founded on a faulty principle.

But you can't manage that. You've moved from a correlation to a cause. Where's the proof? On this vital point you've out on a limb of belief.

The proof? Look at the world and its history. That it has run like a black tentacle through our history, that it is something that people take for granted, that as soon as children learn to speak they begin asserting possession (it's one of the first features of speech to develop) and the territorial instincts of other animals.

Furthermore, considering the many many murders that have occurred in wars/cannibal societies/everyday life I think your argument for "murder is bad" being hardwired into humans has many problems.

Ah but killing someone for food or in war is not 'murder', culturally speaking. Of course we view it as a deplorable loss of life but murder means something entirely different. In a cannibal society if a tribesman killed anotherwithin his tribe without sufficient cause he would be puished, if on the battlefield a soldier kills someone who is not an enemy they are punished.

And I would counter by pointing to the vast diversity in human societies prior to imperialism and globalisation (which have acted as forces of homogenisation.) Or I would point to your undefined Human Nature, get you to properly propound it and then criticise it fully.

Firstly I'm not discussing the entirety of human nature, simply the role of instinctual acquisition plays within it. Secondly societies differed but they shared common traits, for example an entitlement to ownership and a need to acquire more resources to grow.

Yes, poorly defined. You've now provided some more information (it is variable and it is continuous) but it's still not well defined.

I'm not entirely certain how else it can BE defined if I'm honest; I've discussed a possible cause, the nature of the instinct and pointed at history for innumerable examples.

Anyhow, I think that "the urge to improve one's lot" is generated by a very superficial and modern reading of history. In fact, you do seem to project modern ideas about property on to your view of history.

Hardly modern, some of the earliest pieces of writing we've found concern business transactions.

Based on your usage of instinctual urges you appear to be saying little more than Tabula Rasa is flawed because you disagree with it.

No, the concept of Tabula Rasa doesn't take in to account ANY instinctual urges or other natural influences. Ergo it is flawed; we are clearly not an entirely blank slate.

It's not the crux of my argument, it's the crux of the argument you think you have with me.

Do not twist and turn, it is most unbecoming. You stated explicitly that because there has been much discourse on the subject of human nature that having any concrete opinion is foolish. I pointed out that this debate has not concerned itself with the simplicities of humanity or taken in to account instincts. Ergo one can have a valid opinion in that area (frankly one could have a valid opinion in any area, this is for the sake of arguement).

Anyhow, you've used "instinctual urges" and "human nature" interchangeably and it seems little more than an attempt to obscure the point.

When I state 'human nature' I am referring to the particular instinctual urge discussed; if instincts are not part of human nature nothing is.

You're now asking for me to find a rebuttal to your particular phraseology in philosophy texts - that's insane, they will not have mentioned your views by the same name that you have.

I'm really not, simply one discussing a sense of entitlement or the self-evident urge to acquire. My idiolect is my own.

It is flexibility. It is a debate on how much (how flexible they are) people can depart from their "instinctual urges" (read: human nature) or if, in fact, any instinctual urges exist at all.

The flexibility of man is not central to the 'nature vs. nurture' debate, it would simply be one of the many implications. That much of our behaviour lies in biological mechanisms and therefore beyond control is becoming increasingly clear anyway.

Again, insanity. You require of me to find works of others that directly talk about your views.

As I said, not directly and I don't consider it a novel or even particularly interesting view. It is simply one that is self-evident to those not attempting to portray man greater than he is.

Have philosophers discussed if people are naturally greedy? Yes. Have they mentioned "whether people felt entitled to ownership" (which as you mention below, is the same as greed) specifically? No, I haven't encountered it.

Then you have no right to suggest it is not a valid point of view due to phantom discourse.

You've done that to obscure the point and forward your own little view.

No, I've done it so that your ilk cannot exploit the negative meaning of 'greed'.

I asked about the mutualist view on property - Proudhon, "property is theft", etc. Not about landowners. And it is relevant.

"Property is theft" was referring TO landowners. My points were directly referincing this.

No, in yours my argument is an appeal to authority, in mine they are examples.

Examples of great men, authority figures in fact, who debated the niceties of human nature. Your point being because they did and continue to other opinions are not valid. I'm sorry but at this point you're just being pig headed.

I am on a thread putting forward my own views, as everyone else was. That puts me firmly on the "Pro-Slizor" table.

It's all good and well accusing others of having ill defined views or dismissing any contrary arguement because 'those aren't my views' but what have you done yourself? Spent a few paragraphs arguing that debate in otehrs denies anyone else an opinion and then entered in to a sermon about the evils of capitalism. You haven't defined you viewpoint beyond what it apparently isn't (which you only did as response to me, no impetus of your own) and used it as a questionable method of abandoning the negative aspects of communism or socialism to help your arguement. You dare accuse the American government of not having the belief to defend a viewpoint even when you fail to defend the negative aspects of yours?

Based on historical observation coloured by belief. Anyhow, there's an appalling argument - your view is based upon "historical observation". That could deployed in any argument, by anyone. What makes you so special?

Don't hide behind insults and feigned incredulity when the basis of your arguement is 'you're biased so I don't have to listen to you'; I will not stand for such cowardice. It is belief based upon how capitalist societies have evolved to what they are today.

---

At 9/25/08 07:44 AM, Slizor wrote: You also seem to have a fairly neat little definition of what Communism is and what Communism isn't (and what a Communist is and what a Communist isn't.) Must a Communist associate themselves with Stalin or Mao?

They must admit the failures inherent in their system as demonstrated by history, yes. One never sees a capitalist denying culpability for failings in the system on the grounds of 'it just hasn't been done properly yet'. That is the greatest hypocrisy of your viewpoint and one you seem to embrace.

If you desire to go hell for leather with an avowed Marxist I suggest you go and find one. You can then drive each other insane by grounding your views in historical "facts" and inserting beliefs in every nook and cranny.

I agree, at least fanatics are honest in their zealotry.

Threads aren't limited and defined - these aren't debates on set topics.

They are supposed to be; or should these boards simply be a place as a soapbox for one's own opinions?

Anyhow, you responded to my views to begin with. If you wanted to "attack Communism" you could have just made a post laying out your theory of "instinctive acquisition" and how it counters Communist doctrine. At which point with your view fully elaborated on rather than coming on in drips and drabs and with words used to obscure points, I would have ripped it to shreds.

I responded to your post and addressed your specific points, not to your viewpoint as you have yet to disclose it. Now you're just acting like an arrogant child; I've yet to see any shredding beyond your phantom assertions and any respectability you had before this point. The meaning is not obscured, the world is not out to get you (though if there were any target deserving you seem to be it).

If you do not wish to debate my viewpoint, I suggest you don't try to debate me.

It's not that I do not wish to debate your viewpoint, it's that I do not wish to debate your world view. I am happy to discuss your views on communism.

A figure of speech that was vital to your point.

No, it isn't. I could easily say 'the principle it was developed on' and be done with it; honestly the alacrity with which you jump on any percieved failing and the subsequent shameless hubris you express after doing so reminds me of nothing so much as a dog playing fetch.

Not really. There are many avowed Communists who do not consider Stalinist or Maoism as the real thing, as Marx likely would have considering they both missed out on the Capitalist stage.

Which is why Marx was wrong; he also predicted that it would be a peaceful transition and not one of bloody rebellion but he was incorrect here also. As previously discussed one cannot jettison the darker side (read: reality) of a belief system simply because it's inconveniant in an arguement.

You missed the point. Economic mobility refers to the ability of an individual to move between economic classes.

Oh I see, well then I'd argue that it is the capitalist element that allows this rather than the socialist. After all, socialism is founded on egalitarianism by which there would be no classes at all. The reason it acts as a positive factor in this case is that with a social net in place falling is not quite so hard and climbing much easier. Which is why I approve of a socialist element to temper the harshness of capitalism and protect competition. Honestly it's almost as if you're asserting that I beleive in a certain way because I'm defending capitalism... how dreadfuly uncanny.

No, you provided an imprecise definition then called my use a conceit. Don't try and bullshit me with your "more modern meaning".

It isn't imprecise, it means exactly the same thing but with a greater explanation. I didn't talk about its root, which is what you are doing, and so was not bound to literally translate the greek variant. If we take its root then your usage is still a conceit because, as an apparently simple feature of an economic system, merits rule nothing. Either claim that capitalism is a form of governence that runs purely on the lines of a meritocracy or admit that it is a conceit.

But is not a system of government and thus invalidates your limited definition.

No, it was applied metaphorically. METAPHORICALLY. Which is often the case with neologisms and this seems to be nothing but a rather poor joke: 'prostitutes rule' I mean really... Honestly I don't know why I'm not just pointing out its extremely archaic nature. Suffice it to say a word with a very limited meaning arrising from an archaic sociolect and was nothing but a metaphoric conversion is not compellign evidence.

It's not a recognised system of economics, it's a feature of an economic system. Sorry if you did not understand that but the point was obvious.

I understand what you were trying to say; I disagreed with the implications 'meritocracy' has. You applied it to a system that clearly isn't a meritocracy and then claimed triumph when you stated it doesn't work along those lines. Capitalism works on people's merits, yes, but not to the extent you wish to claim.

Oh please. I suppose you consider "you dolt" the height of wit.

It inhabits a loftier perch than 'dickhead' and 'pathetic'.

If the US government believed in free market capitalism as they say they do (particularly in the WTO) then it is an earnest attempt to destroy the American economy.

So capitalists should defend their system's problems despite how much it might hurt people but any one with communist inclinations can simply write it off as 'improper implementation'? Anyway you're exagerrating as they haven't nationalised the banks they're just purchasing the bad debt; which while being governmental interference it is still founded on capitalist principles.

No, it's a liberal branch of economics. Keynes was not a socialist.

No, but he advocated socialist features in capitalist systems. Which is why it falls under the branch of 'socialist economics'.

You do like defining the debate don't you? (Seems to be the other thing you'll clearly define) I thought you were supposed to be attacking Communism and I defending it.

How is discussing communisms 'demerits' not attacking it?

Business owners also had the stick heavily applied. They were forced to fill unrealistic production quotas that required them to focus on numbers rather than quality.

It wasn't the same sort of stick as you well know, there was no incentive to ensure higher quality because the party didn't ask them to as quality is a consideration that arises from market pressures as opposed to downward control.

I refer you back to the point on economic mobility.

I refer you to the point discussed there also.

No I didn't. Show me where.

'A system of giving as much as you can and taking as much as you need doesn't really try to work along the lines of merit or even claim that it does.'. I understand that you're implying that the inequalities within capitalism mean that it isn't a meritocracy but in your defense of communism you suggest that this feature is flawed.

Clearly, instead of you getting on your high horse, claiming that people are reading things wrongly and condescendingly trying to explain your sentences, you need to learn how to punctuate.

You're claiming a small portion of triumph due to a grammatical oversight I already admitted to? My word.

How very droll. Public school isn't really an option for me; I'm too old and I'm far too qualified for them to offer anything.

Other than gracious manners and a more complete understanding of the people you revile so. Then again that would mean you actually had any interest in understanding the world.

I said nothing about your perceived class

You stated I go to a public school, not due to excellence, but due to my opinions on capitalism. The implication being that I am of old stock. If you hadn't gathered yet I do not attend a public school.

You consider Bolshie insulting? I thought you were trying to be descriptive!

Insulting to support a system that enjoyed severe oppression of personal liberty and killed millions? Yes, rather.

---

At 9/21/08 10:20 PM, gdude100 wrote: The man who made it was a genius, and would be a visionary today.

The basis of communism is that one person controls the government, but the government makes life equal for every human under the rule. Same profit, same lifestyle, everything.

The basis of communism is an attack on the problems with capitalism. Communism was presented as a future political-economic system that would supplant capitalism/democracy. The theoritical framework benefits social science by introducing a Socio-Economic Class model that has been beneficial to sociology and some political science.

However, it really does not give much in the way of an answer to these problems which is why people like Lenin, Stalin, etc can corrupt and manipulate what he wrote.