What Political Persuasion Are You?

[Peregrine]

Marxist ßastard:

 

However, because this is possible (given time) and -- above all else -- because progression towards this system produces its own benefits, I'm just not seeing how anyone who argues for a push toward Communism is, and I quote, "either a moron, evil, or both."

 

Because there is no realistic way to create a working communist system in the forseeable future. All we have are vague statements of "maybe people could change", without any plan for how to make them change. And history proves it, the past attempts at communism have ended in disaster.

 

So anyone arguing for creating a real-world communist system in the forseeable future is ignoring both history and human nature. Whether they're a moron and don't know any better, or evil and want to use communism as another tool to gain power, who knows.

 

===================================

 

Alanador:

 

But why are we so compelled to label? Does a system need a name to be authenticated?

 

Because labels are convenient. It's easier to say "communism" than to list the entire detailed concept every time we want to refer to it.

 

 

Through out early recorded history many asian nations developed fighting styles...even within what some see as 'karate' there are numerous divisions...same for Kung-fu, (really every other major fighting style as well). Who has been the definative source on these issues...a philosopher...who happened to kick much ass...Bruce Lee. He proposed a style without style...fighting without fighting. The paradox almost seems like it cannot work...yet amazingly he and many of his followers became some of the most efficient scholars of defensive arts. Bruce was condemned by his peers and elders at the time for not only revealing techniques that were protected from the west...but more so...because he challenged their system. Bruce pulled from every know defensive style to find what worked for him...and encouraged everyone to do the same...to make it a journey...instead of a destination. The very fact that his "anti-style" or philosophy needed a name to be related to in the midst of all the other styles bothered him immensely...as that was his MAIN goal...breaking out of preformed thought, and practice.

 

 

Nice philosophy, but not entirely relevant. All he managed to produce was a sport, not an effective system of defense. Why? Because he ignores the fact that martial arts are completely irrelevant to the modern world. His entire concept only works in an ideal fantasy world where his assumptions are all somehow made true.

 

Where's his style's use of guns? Or at least knives? Bruce Lee might have been good at his sport, but give me a good pistol and I'd kill him without needing all the pointless training.

 

Or maybe that is the proper analogy? Your weird philosophy about labels will produce a communist-like system that involves nice philosophical terms, but doesn't actually work in reality.

[Peregrine]

=====================================

loveme4whoiam:

 

Then make the system as un-corruptible as possible. As I have said, remove the permenence of "leadership" and have things run on a truly democratic basis, and corruption will be very hard to do.

 

How do you make it un-corruptible? If you have leadership, the selfish people will use it to their own advantage. If you don't have leadership, the selfish people will quickly impose it on you.

 

It's a lot easier to say "make it uncorruptible" than to actually propose a system of government that is immune to corruption.

 

There has never been any country that has even come close to having a Communist society. The only country that has even a remote tie to Communism in my opinion is Cuba, and that's only through a tenuous relationship with Socialism. But just using that country as an example, despite the ridiculous US embargo (which the UN has asked it 12 times to remove) it has the best education and health care system in the world.

 

My point exactly. Communism in the real world is a hopeless ideal. The true believers in the revolution are quickly replaced by a different set of selfish people exploiting the masses. That is, if there even were any true believers in the first place...

 

Perhaps you are more intelligent than most people - does that give you the right to better healthcare, education, and standard of living over those people?

 

Of course it does. If I work hard to improve my life, why shouldn't I see some benefit from it?

 

And what about those people who, while not being as clever as you, are still utterly required by society to function? The commonly used exampe is a cleaner in a hospital. Without him, the hospital would be filthy and people would die of infections. Without the doctor, people would die from their illnesses. Which one is more important?

 

And there are vastly more people capable of doing the clearner's job, with no education or skill required. Compare this to the doctor who has both exceptional intelligence, and years of expensive and demanding education. Why shouldn't the doctor get the rewards of his much greater contribution and effort?

 

And to answer to your question I'd ask you one. If you knew you were going to get those benefits, would you work, or would you sit on your backside all day? I'd imagine you would probably want to work, so why would you not learn to do that demanding, and probably enjoyable job in engineering?

 

If I'd get the exact same $45,000 a year, I'd sit around doing zero work! Oh, sure, I might do a little art in between gaming sessions, but my contribution to society would be a lot less than what it will be in the real world.

 

If you wish to have a job simply for the perks it brings, I would question yours or anyones fitness for that job. In a Communist society, people would do jobs that they enjoy, which will also have a positive effect on society as a whole.

 

And guess what, most of the essential jobs in society aren't fun. To use your example of the hospital cleaner... this person is probably lacking in intelligence and ambition, and isn't really qualified to do anything more demanding. And working as a janitor is pretty low on the fun scale... so why would he work at all, if he doesn't have to do it to feed himself/his family?

 

Exactly! With no money, there is no distinction between poor and rich, and everyone has equal access to all that they require. No-one relies on parcelled out portions in order to live, while people who have earned their money through the exploitation of others live in luxury.

 

And having no money is pure fantasy, which will only be accomplished once we reach some scifi tech-utopia level where scarcity is a distant memory. Anyone who thinks money is going away anytime soon is a complete moron, and needs to read an economics textbook. Even if you want to have more equality in the system, you still need a unified system for trade.

 

I think you missed MBs point. People are selfish because the exploitative nature of society rewards those who are selfish. That is how it has been, as you say, since the beginning of recorded history, and how it will be until things change.

 

And it's pure fantasy that things ever will change, short of unrealistic scifi inventions. Saying "things can change" isn't enough, lets see a proposal for how to change them.

 

I dislike the idea of social darwinism, as there are just so many examples of selfless people for it to ever be considered an evolutionary process. There is no set pattern of "human nature", just what we learn. If we learn that we get ahead by being a male without a father, most people will be bastards.

 

Like it or not, that's how things work. But even in the idea of social darwinism, you still get selfless people. The species with the proper balance will always survive better. Too few selfless people, and the society is too divided by competition and suffers as a whole. Too many selfless people, and the society is taken over by someone less idealistic.

 

So while you'll always have selfless people in a successful society, you'll also always have some selfish ones. And any non-zero number of selfish people is enough to ruin communism.

 

True, there will always be exceptional people who will be ahead of the curve. But is that any argument to keep the hundred thousand back? Of course not. Arguing against raising the intelligence level of society as whole is, ironically, a bit foolish in my opinion, and smacks a bit of elitism.

 

I'm not arguing for holding society back, I'm just saying that any improvement in teaching that will lead to raising the intelligence of the lowest members of society will also raise the intelligence of the highest ones. You'll still have a gap and some people (like myself) better than others, but now it'll be at a higher average. For example...

 

I have about a 140 IQ, the average person is closer to 100. Lets add your miracle teaching method that brings everyone up to my level. Ok, so now I benefit from it as well, and I'm now at 180, while everyone else is at 140. Now we still have a gap, and the exact same situation as before.

 

Granted, IQ numbers are a really simplified way of looking at it, but it's enough to get the general idea.

 

You are right. Which is why Marx, along with many others, stated that the material conditions of society must be right in order for Communism to succeed. That is why the USSR failed - it entered into "communism" far too early in its development.

 

And those material conditions will NEVER be met, outside of science fiction stories.

 

And as far a golden statue of yourself - why on earth would you need one of those? Try explaining that to the people you would need to mine the gold ore and refine it and see if they would do it.

 

You missed the point. In the Culture example, I wouldn't need to ask someone to mine the gold ore and refine it, I'd just tell my robot servants to do it for me. Why would I want one? Because I can.

 

Communism will only succeed once greed has been made obsolete by absurd technology, when every person in society can do similar things just because they feel like it. As long as you still have scarcity of materials and labor keeping people from having gold statues just because they feel like one, you'll still have greed and people willing to exploit others to get a statue.

 

=============================================

 

And sorry for the double post, the quote tags refuse to work any other way.

[Alanador]

You miss the point, I'm not pointing to his achievement...I'm pointing to his approach within his given field. But to his credit he did specialize in many weapons. You could even say he gave us the 'TAZER' from his poineering work in electro muscle stimulation (EMS). And his theory on guns...you can't win, unless the circumstances are very, very specific, which defy most situations in reality unless you create them, but we won't get into 'not being there' (rest assured Bruce Lee in the movies you've seen is not Bruce Lee the martial artist. For instance he recommended against kicking in a real fight). I used his technique of thought as an analogy as to how I think politics should be approached. No- I see communism as something that would not get everyone on board, even if it is just because it has been tried so many times and failed, or becuase the name has a certain connotation. People should be rewarded for their hardwork, by all means, but they also have a responsibility to the community that needs them, to help. Anyone can shrug that responsibility off, since it is not enforced. Is communism when, for instance, we as a nation (all hypothetical) of capitalism help the less fortunate with charity? What if we'd spent the money used for these wars on education? Does it become something new? Is it capitalism/communism/socialism....or is it a truth that needs no defining...and just is, and would be there under any situation it is allowed to happen under.

[loveme4whoiam]

I'm looking at a checklist on a leftist website that states the most commonly used arguments against Communism, and so far they are all present. Human nature; utopianism; no set plan; bad jobs need doing... I'm not trying to belittle you in any way Peregrine, I'm just saying that these accusations are leveled at Communism constantly, and never successfully.

 

How do you make it un-corruptible? If you have leadership, the selfish people will use it to their own advantage. If you don't have leadership, the selfish people will quickly impose it on you.

 

How can they impose leadership on you? In a directly democratic system, where any issue which affects people on a society-wide level is voted on, how can one selfish person, or a group of selfish people impose their own will on the whoel of society. With the raised level of education, people will be able to a much greater degree than is encouraged now to think for themselves, to look at the facts of whatever matter is beign voted on and come to their own conclusions. How do you corrupt that? I'm actually asking here, if there is a weak point I'd like to know it so I can bring it up in discussion with people who regularly think about this stuff.

 

Of course it does. If I work hard to improve my life, why shouldn't I see some benefit from it?

And there are vastly more people capable of doing the clearner's job, with no education or skill required. Compare this to the doctor who has both exceptional intelligence, and years of expensive and demanding education. Why shouldn't the doctor get the rewards of his much greater contribution and effort?

 

I'm sorry, up until now your argument has been reasonable. This is elitism, plain and simple. Do you not see the link between the two jobs - they both rely on one another. Yes, a doctor has gone through his years of training, but during that time what do you think the cleaner has been doing? (S)he has been keeping the hospital clean so it can function. Simply stating that you are a better person than someone else because you have chosen a different career path to them is horrific to me, and the reason why Communism will fail if the majority persist in believing this.

 

If I'd get the exact same $45,000 a year, I'd sit around doing zero work! Oh, sure, I might do a little art in between gaming sessions, but my contribution to society would be a lot less than what it will be in the real world.

 

Then that's a bit depressing. I know that I'd want something challenging and constructive to do with my life rather than just play games all day. And I think that were education to place a greater emphasis on that aspect of work (as it would do), rather than simply plugging the "the best jobs earn the most money" angle, I think that more people would think like that.

 

And guess what, most of the essential jobs in society aren't fun. To use your example of the hospital cleaner... this person is probably lacking in intelligence and ambition, and isn't really qualified to do anything more demanding. And working as a janitor is pretty low on the fun scale... so why would he work at all, if he doesn't have to do it to feed himself/his family?

 

This is again the material conditions issue. Right now we as a society require people to do the jobs that aren't pleasant. It is a central problem with the capitalist system that the people who do do these jobs are scorned by the rest of society, for example as "lacking in intelligence and ambition... not qualified to do anything more demending." Tell me, how do you think society would function if all those people, the janitors, street-cleaners, rubbish collectors, stopped working? It would cease to function. Perhaps they are worthy of more than just your scorn and contempt, regardless of their "lack of ambition".

 

But to answer the actual issue, in a Communist society I believe that an emphasis on shared labour would be a great deal more prevalent. Instead of relying on a single janitor to clean an office building, the entire staff would ensure that their working environment was kept clean. And as for the "worse" jobs, like sewer worker for instance, then this is where that "scifi" technology would come in, to reduce the human element in those types of labour to a bare minimum.

 

So while you'll always have selfless people in a successful society, you'll also always have some selfish ones. And any non-zero number of selfish people is enough to ruin communism.

 

Why? How do you corrupt true Communism? You;ve asked me to put forward proposals for how it would work, I'd ask you to show how it is these people would tear down a system without money to divide us, without leaders to blind us, and without ignorance of what is happening in the world.

 

And having no money is pure fantasy, which will only be accomplished once we reach some scifi tech-utopia level where scarcity is a distant memory. Anyone who thinks money is going away anytime soon is a complete moron, and needs to read an economics textbook. Even if you want to have more equality in the system, you still need a unified system for trade.

 

Very true. But it can happen. As I said somewhere way up near the top of this thread, we already produce more than enough food to feed the globe a couple times over. Unfortunately I'm no where near knowledgable enough to provide a comprehensive summary of the economics of Communism, or indeed the Socialism phase which society would pass through on the way to Communism (the gradual process that MB is talking about). If you do want to know about this I can point you in the direction of some good texts, and a couple of guys on that leftist message board who are ridiculously knowledgable on the subject.

 

I'm not arguing for holding society back, I'm just saying that any improvement in teaching that will lead to raising the intelligence of the lowest members of society will also raise the intelligence of the highest ones. You'll still have a gap and some people (like myself) better than others, but now it'll be at a higher average.

 

And where is the problem with that? Why shouldn't the average person be better equipped to understand the issues that effect their lives?

 

And those material conditions will NEVER be met, outside of science fiction stories.

 

Like I said, the food condition is pretty much already met, it is just selfishly hoarded and squandered by the West whilst the whole of Africa and most of Asia is on the constant brink of famine. As for the other conditions, I'd say that we are already pretty close to the technological ones.

 

Education in not what to think, but how to think for oneself; the realisation that nationality and race mean nothing in reality; and the conquering of elitist thought. I would uphold these as the bringers of a Communist society. Once the masses, the people who keep society running, realise this, and when the material conditions are met which they one day will be, then a Communist society is inevitable.

[Peregrine]

I'm looking at a checklist on a leftist website that states the most commonly used arguments against Communism, and so far they are all present. Human nature; utopianism; no set plan; bad jobs need doing... I'm not trying to belittle you in any way Peregrine, I'm just saying that these accusations are leveled at Communism constantly, and never successfully.

 

Please, lets see a link to this checklist... I seriously question the honesty and/or intelligence behind that site, especially when you even admit it's a leftist (and therefore biased) source.

 

How can they impose leadership on you? In a directly democratic system, where any issue which affects people on a society-wide level is voted on, how can one selfish person, or a group of selfish people impose their own will on the whoel of society.

 

Hi, I'm Peregrine. My friends over there with the guns are going to kill you unless you obey me. Have a nice day!

 

Or if you don't go for true anarchy...

 

Hi, I'm Peregrine, your new senator. I'm going to bend your system through politics until I get what I want.

 

 

With the raised level of education, people will be able to a much greater degree than is encouraged now to think for themselves, to look at the facts of whatever matter is beign voted on and come to their own conclusions. How do you corrupt that? I'm actually asking here, if there is a weak point I'd like to know it so I can bring it up in discussion with people who regularly think about this stuff.

 

Simple... form a large enough group of similarly selfish people, and start telling other people what to do. The same way that governments everywhere make the citizens obey their laws.

 

I'm sorry, up until now your argument has been reasonable. This is elitism, plain and simple. Do you not see the link between the two jobs - they both rely on one another. Yes, a doctor has gone through his years of training, but during that time what do you think the cleaner has been doing? (S)he has been keeping the hospital clean so it can function. Simply stating that you are a better person than someone else because you have chosen a different career path to them is horrific to me, and the reason why Communism will fail if the majority persist in believing this.

 

You're right, I've chosen a different career path... one that is far more demanding and requires lots of effort over several years invested in education before I can even begin to think about doing it. Why shouldn't I get more rewards for my effort than some high school dropout whose skills are limited to knowing how to use a mop?

 

Then that's a bit depressing. I know that I'd want something challenging and constructive to do with my life rather than just play games all day. And I think that were education to place a greater emphasis on that aspect of work (as it would do), rather than simply plugging the "the best jobs earn the most money" angle, I think that more people would think like that.

 

Sure, I might do something with my time, but "what is fun" and "what is best for society" aren't the same, even if they involve the same eventual goal. Lets look at two hypothetical scenarios...

 

1) I finish that degree, get my aerospace engineering job, and join a small company which is developing a new plane design that gets far superior fuel efficiency than its competition. Because my job and money are at stake, I finish the design quickly so I can get my pay. The company is successful, and my country as a whole benefits from both the advances in technology, and the economic boost provided by a successful business.

 

2) I finish that degree, taking a few years longer because I know there's no rush, the government will provide everything for me no matter how long I take. Once I get it, I start tinkering with the design on the side... but not too urgently, it's not like I'm gaining anything from it besides curiousity. So I'll work on it off and on, whenever I feel like it, taking plenty of long vacations in the process. Finally, many years later, I finish it, and hand it to the manufacturers (who love building things... though slowly for the same reasons).

 

Oh, problem time... that non-communist country across the ocean had the design finished years ago, and already dominated the market. My poor communist country gets no benefits, and continues its slow decline into poverty.

 

 

See a difference?

 

 

This is again the material conditions issue. Right now we as a society require people to do the jobs that aren't pleasant. It is a central problem with the capitalist system that the people who do do these jobs are scorned by the rest of society, for example as "lacking in intelligence and ambition... not qualified to do anything more demending."

 

That's exaclty what it is. These jobs are not at all pleasant, few people (if any) would take them if they had a better option. The people who take them are the ones who aren't qualified to do anything else.

 

 

Tell me, how do you think society would function if all those people, the janitors, street-cleaners, rubbish collectors, stopped working? It would cease to function. Perhaps they are worthy of more than just your scorn and contempt, regardless of their "lack of ambition".

 

Of course it would cease to function. That's yet another reason why communism won't work, with no motivation to take the unpleasant jobs, the unskilled labor pool just sits at home doing nothing all day and collecting the same benefits. So the jobs don't get done, and society falls apart.

 

But to answer the actual issue, in a Communist society I believe that an emphasis on shared labour would be a great deal more prevalent. Instead of relying on a single janitor to clean an office building, the entire staff would ensure that their working environment was kept clean. And as for the "worse" jobs, like sewer worker for instance, then this is where that "scifi" technology would come in, to reduce the human element in those types of labour to a bare minimum.

 

So you concede that communism is completely unrealistic without vastly advanced technology?

 

Why? How do you corrupt true Communism? You;ve asked me to put forward proposals for how it would work, I'd ask you to show how it is these people would tear down a system without money to divide us, without leaders to blind us, and without ignorance of what is happening in the world.

 

Simple, you just realize that as a selfish person, you can benefit from refusing to comply with the communist society. And then you do so.

 

And you're a complete moron if you think any society with no leaders can actually work. Make a society without leaders, and you'll quickly find a society with some new leaders. Of course those leaders will be the selfish and strong, leading by threat of violence if they have to, but you'll get your leaders...

 

Dreaming of a system without money isn't much more realistic. I suggest reading a basic economics textbook, money provides an essential function in allowing a unified system for exchanging goods and services. Something that's pretty important in having a stable society.

 

Very true. But it can happen. As I said somewhere way up near the top of this thread, we already produce more than enough food to feed the globe a couple times over.

 

Which means absolutely nothing. Sure, you might be able to keep the entire population from dying of starvation, but that isn't at all the same thing as eliminating scarcity. Do we produce enough to feed every single person at the most extreme level of luxury? If not, you still have scarcity, and you still have a motive for people to be selfish and take more than their share.

 

 

And where is the problem with that? Why shouldn't the average person be better equipped to understand the issues that effect their lives?

 

Do you even read what I write? I never said I have a problem with improving the average person's intelligence, in fact I strongly support making the moron hordes a little less worthless. My point is that even if you do exactly that, you will still not be able to create equality. Every increase you produce in the low end will be matched by an increase in the high end, and you'll still have a difference.

 

Just look at the difference between society now, and society 1000 years ago. The average person is much better educated, but so is everyone else. You still have differences in education, even if society as a whole has been vastly improved.

 

Like I said, the food condition is pretty much already met, it is just selfishly hoarded and squandered by the West whilst the whole of Africa and most of Asia is on the constant brink of famine. As for the other conditions, I'd say that we are already pretty close to the technological ones.

 

No, it HASN'T been met. Meeting basic needs is completely different from eliminating scarcity completely, the prerequisite for communism. Sure, you might be able to feed everyone bland food to keep from starvation, but you'll always have people who want that exotic fish prepared by a master chef. And those people are going to break the system of communism, and exploit others to get that fish dinner.

and when the material conditions are met which they one day will be, then a Communist society is inevitable.

 

Of course they will, someday... might take 100,000 years, but eventually we'll get there. But I'd hardly call "we'll probably have a communist society before the end of the universe" the same as "communism is a realistic idea".

[KzinistZerg]

I voted Center. I find myself being actually off the scale somewhere...

 

My philosophy is generally that of absolute freedom. However, I'm not QUITE sure how to apply this to the real world. After all, it seems to me that the larger the group involved, the worse any government is. Less and less customisation. There are holes in my arguments. I need to do more research to fill in these holes, or, if my arguments turn out to be on the same intellectual level as a slightly demented frog, then i'll neeed to scrap them and get a new one based on the facts availiable. The main trouble with this is the lack of unbiased facts. So don't ask me to expound on how, say, I think the world would be better off with no governement but unfortunately there's too many problems with no governement... and so on.

 

When asked about issues specifically, I usually come across as republican. Wwhen asked, i tell people i'm republican, even though i'm closer to the center. The reason is that I live in a VERY democratic or liberal area (Philadelphia. Go figure.) and I say so to distance myself from everyone else.

 

For instance, I support the liberal side of home issues, the republican side of outside issues.

 

On the subject of communism: communism, true communism, does indeed exist in the world. It's called families. Communism works on the small scale, where everyone has a hand in the matter. At larger scales, it falls apart. Like all governments.

 

EDIT: NOW i remember what i wanted to say!

 

I've found that either end of the wacko scale is bad. Super-democrats say, "We tell you what to do. WE know best. Obey US." Super-republicans say, "GOD tells us what to say, and we tell you what to do. Obey God's Word."

[loveme4whoiam]

The website is www.revolutionaryleft.com. The link to that checklist (I bent the truth a bit there, its actually a thread), unfortunately, cannot be found. I just spent a good ten minutes hunting for it but I've forgotten where it is :blush: I'll edit if/when I find it.

Why do you question something you have no information on? Just because its a left site does not automatically make it dishonest and stupid; it's members (for the most part) are quite the opposite in fact. Its this narrowmindedness which holds back the majority of people.

 

Hi, I'm Peregrine. My friends over there with the guns are going to kill you unless you obey me. Have a nice day!

 

Hi, I'm loveme4whoiam. See all these people standing next to me? These are the masses. There are more of us, and more guns. Do you think you're going to have a nice day?

 

People power will always win over a minority. And I'd like to think that the masses would put a stop to an individual's rise to a position where he could begin something like that it the first place.

 

Hi, I'm Peregrine, your new senator. I'm going to bend your system through politics until I get what I want.

 

Precisely why the political system now is so rubbish.

 

Simple... form a large enough group of similarly selfish people, and start telling other people what to do. The same way that governments everywhere make the citizens obey their laws.

 

Do you read anything that I write? If people get used to thinking for themselves, why would they do what some group tells them to? And before you go back to your "I've got guns, do what I say" scenario, I've just said what happens when it reaches that point.

 

You're right, I've chosen a different career path... one that is far more demanding and requires lots of effort over several years invested in education before I can even begin to think about doing it. Why shouldn't I get more rewards for my effort than some high school dropout whose skills are limited to knowing how to use a mop?

 

Because you are both essential for the running of society.

 

Oh' date=' problem time... that non-communist country across the ocean had the design finished years ago, and already dominated the market. My poor communist country gets no benefits, and continues its slow decline into poverty.[/quote']

 

You are thinking about a in a capitalist society, which requires such competition. Actually, this might have been my fault, I've yet to point out explicitly that Communism is a global form of government; if half of the world is Commie and half of the world is Cappie, the Commie side won't survive since the Cappies can force-mobilise more labour and out-produce the Commies.

 

In a Communist society it isn't essential for that plane to be completed as soon as possible. Other planes are already around, doing their jobs fine. Why is designing a a new plane quickly that can shave a quarter of a percent increase in fuel effiency, when you can take your time and develop one that can increase it by a third? Without the enforced rush of competition industry can slow down and do things properly.

 

That's exaclty what it is. These jobs are not at all pleasant, few people (if any) would take them if they had a better option. The people who take them are the ones who aren't qualified to do anything else.

 

You seem to have ignored my point. Do they deserve any less respect because they are less qualified than you, despite them doing a crucial and unpleasant (much more so than your job I'd imagine) job?

 

Of course it would cease to function. That's yet another reason why communism won't work, with no motivation to take the unpleasant jobs, the unskilled labor pool just sits at home doing nothing all day and collecting the same benefits. So the jobs don't get done, and society falls apart.

 

I've already explained about that - perhaps not well enough though. IF you want a proper explanation, I'd suggest Who Will Clean The Sewers? by a chap named RedStar2000 on that forum. His collection of explanatory articles are excellent, and answer all the questions raised in this debate along with many others.

 

So you concede that communism is completely unrealistic without vastly advanced technology?

 

I wouldn't say vastly. Then again, I'm not a water treament engineer, or anyone who actually works with stuff that would require these technologies. Still, technology is always marching on.

 

Simple, you just realize that as a selfish person, you can benefit from refusing to comply with the communist society. And then you do so.

 

What do you then do when all of your neighbours, who do pro-social jobs of their own free will, knock on your door and ask why it is you need a top of the line computer when all you is play games all day. The people who serve society would be those who benefitted first, at least until a true gift economy was viable. And I'd agree with you, that is some way off right now.

 

And you're a complete moron if you think any society with no leaders can actually work. Make a society without leaders, and you'll quickly find a society with some new leaders. Of course those leaders will be the selfish and strong, leading by threat of violence if they have to, but you'll get your leaders...

 

Thank you. And I think you're a small-minded elitist if you can't see past the need capitalism has ground into you for leaders. People can decide for themselves about what effects them, and will be able to better if the education system aided them in seeing rather than blinding them.

 

Dreaming of a system without money isn't much more realistic. I suggest reading a basic economics textbook, money provides an essential function in allowing a unified system for exchanging goods and services. Something that's pretty important in having a stable society.

 

I really should read up on economics properly. But right now I am wrapped up in my own career path, and the number of historical texts I have to read pretty much shoves to the side any other reading plans.

 

Which means absolutely nothing. Sure, you might be able to keep the entire population from dying of starvation, but that isn't at all the same thing as eliminating scarcity. Do we produce enough to feed every single person at the most extreme level of luxury? If not, you still have scarcity, and you still have a motive for people to be selfish and take more than their share.

 

What? So if we are unable to provide everyone on earth with a three-course lobster meal every day we are experiencing scarcity? If someone in a Communist society wants to eat lobster every day, let them become a fisherman and catch it themselves. If there is enough food for everyone to survive comfortably and with a fair degree of variety, then I'd be happy. And I imagine the millions of people experiencing famine right now would be too.

 

My point is that even if you do exactly that, you will still not be able to create equality. Every increase you produce in the low end will be matched by an increase in the high end, and you'll still have a difference.

 

I beg your pardon, I missed your point. I think I was thrown by your casual scorn for those who have not had as good an education as yourself.

I do not care about creating equality of intelligence; as you say its impossible. But what I would hope would happen through that better education that it would be taught that it is wrong to casually dislike someone simply because they have a lower IQ than you. As long as everyone is able to think independently and pro-socially, I'd be satisfied with the education system.

 

but you'll always have people who want that exotic fish prepared by a master chef.

 

If they want that, then let them become a master chef and prepare their own meals. Or have them give something of equal value as those meals to society, so that the chef gets something (in the scheme of things) from the person who wants the meal.

 

Of course they will, someday... might take 100,000 years, but eventually we'll get there. But I'd hardly call "we'll probably have a communist society before the end of the universe" the same as "communism is a realistic idea".

 

I'm prepared to wait ;D Capitalism is a self-destructive system, sooner or later the oppressed classes will seek to end their exploitation.

 

EDIT:- What's up with the quotes?

[Deleted54170User]

.....How did I decide which political views I would act upon? Odd, now that I think about it there weren't people recruiting for the Democrats' or Republicans' group when I was seeking work. I supposed, at the time I was seeking work, that made me a Democrat. I supposed that when I was in charge of a team that made me a business person and also changed my political status to Republican.

 

.....Is Politcal Science a class to teach us what we choose to believe, and want to remember, as well as act upon?

 

.....Or is that, just, Creative Writing class that teaches us that?

[loveme4whoiam]

I wouldn't ever suggest a class that taught you what to think (the reason I'm opposed to the privatised education system Blair is creating >:( ); I would whole-heartedly endorse a class that taught you how to think. I'd say Political Science, or Sociology, or whatever other names it goes by, is an essential part of education.

 

Interesting point about Creative Writing. I suppose that learning how to better articulate thoughts through creative writing could help you think about things differently.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Hmm... so who are the oppressed classes, exactly? And those 'masses' you speak of - who are they? I find the expressions 'oppressed classes' and 'masses' quite offensive, and far more elitist than anything Peregrine may have said.

So you have your 'oppressed classes' and your 'masses' on the one hand... and then you have the more-equal-than-others ideologists to tell the poor exploited proletariat what's good for them...

 

 

Have you asked those 'masses' what they actually want, rather than assume that they want what you think they ought to want? And if they don't want what you think they ought to want, should they be re-educated to want what they ought to want?

 

I read this thing about sewer cleaning by this RedStar2000 guy, and couldn't stop laughing. This guy knows about as much about communism as my cat. So earnest, so naive, so blinkered - so wrong. What this person is proposing is nothing but an inefficient form of capitalism.

True communism requires that every member of society is aware not only of themselves as an individual, but also of themselves a member of a global community. Every member would need to be aware of the needs of the community as a whole, not only of their own needs, and would rate them as equally important. Forget all that outdated stuff about the workers seizing the means of production.

KzinistZerg made a good analogy by comparing communism with families. Next time you want to work out how the dirty, unpleasant jobs get done, don't ask some guy on the internet, who, one suspects, has never cleaned up after a toddler with gastro-enteritis or a kitten with diarrhoea - go ask your mum, your grannie, your dad, aunt or whoever does the dirty jobs in your family. Ask yourself, if you're the one doing the less pleasant household chores. And you'll probably find that the dirty jobs simply get done because they need to get done - without the need for a revolutionary committee or being first in line for some reward, and without a big fuss being made about them.

And in a true communist society, where everyone is aware of the needs of the community, the dirty jobs just would get done. Because everyone would be aware that they need to be done. It would be everyone's responsibility to get them done, and because in this society everyone would accept their responsibilities, those jobs simply would get done.

 

Of course, such a society is, at the moment, utopian. It would require a complete change in human thinking. Perhaps it will come - but until then, communism on a large scale isn't feasible. All you'll end up with is, at best, capitalism with a different name on it.

 

 

 

 

My own political leanings? A mixture. Predominantly green - I think environmental issues are among the most important ones facing the human race. We are destroying our habitat at an insane pace - and it's the only one we've got.

Some of my view are very liberal (for instance, IMO it's not the government's job to protect people from themselves), others are rather conservative (it is, IMO, the government's job to protect citizens from those who wish to harm others, and to do so effectively).

 

Above all, I'm a cynic. I consider politics to be the science - or the art? - of manipulating people... so why should I trust what a politician says? Do they really have my best interest at heart... or the interest of their party, with a view to getting re-elected?

 

Don't even get me started on soundbite politics... :dry: