HeyYou Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I will say it one more time: Pure communism cannot work when humans are involved. On a small scale, perhaps, but, on a national scale (which would technically be a misnomer, as there would be no "nation" per se.....) nottafugginchance. Human nature just won't permit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoofhearted4 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 who wants communism anyways. i want to keep the money i earn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 In communism you would lol. You can even own all your stuff as well. it is only resources and the means to production, and corporate windfall earning which would be reappropriated. Wages for people and private property, such as personal goods is still your wage and your stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beriallord Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Government needs to have to work within a limited budget, no more of these soaring deficits. The government isn't even doing what they did during the great depression, by creating massive amounts of public works projects. They are borrowing and spending all this money, but none of it is being spent wisely. The ones at the bottom are seeing absolutely none of this stimulus money. The stimulus and bailouts were stimulus and bailouts for rich people who are turning around and cutting jobs instead of creating them. In the future this will be known as one of the biggest failed economic experiments ever conceived. This has a lot to do with taxes, because everyone is going to have to end up paying more in the future to make up for the biggest failed economic experiment in history. This isn't Keynesian economics, they are doing it all wrong. Edited February 16, 2012 by Beriallord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I wish the forum didn't spaz out and eat my last post. :( Basic gist is, in the US there has been a successful propaganda campaign against communism. Indeed to the point that the term socialist has be come a slander, used to damage a persons character and poise them as an enemy of the state, to the point of making it illegal in 1940. It has as much chance of being voted in as the Taliban does. Corporations fund and pretty much run the west, the resources and means to production are the only thing they use to keep that power, they aren't letting their grip go on that. People identify with the current political parties so strongly, that no matter what those parties do, their followers will still identify themselves as such. In effect propping them up indefinitely. Yeah, but no one who is serious about what they're doing would try to just outright replace the current US political system, even in the long term. No, coexistence is the best idea, and for that matter peaceful coexistence. I will say it one more time: Pure communism cannot work when humans are involved. On a small scale, perhaps, but, on a national scale (which would technically be a misnomer, as there would be no "nation" per se.....) nottafugginchance. Human nature just won't permit it. Not current human nature no. But again, it'd be foolish to try it nationally. And not even because of human nature but just the pure logistics of it. Even statist countries would have a hard time setting up their new country if they have to deal with over 400 million people (just a guess at the US population) if they're not already getting support from bigger, already established statist countries. And thats a luxury such a society as the communist one would not likely have. As such, if you want to see a big population communist society, you have to start out small and grow towards that goal. who wants communism anyways. i want to keep the money i earn. Money doesn't exist in communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Since my understanding is that this thread is on the subject of taxation and not on the subject of Communism, I will limit my comments on the latter. However, I was reading up on Anarchist communism, and their basic belief is, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Although they do advocate the abolition of the state and private property and even money to some extent. My understanding is that the basis for this is that eventually there would be no need for currency as everything would be in effect, "free". So the above poster seems to be agreeing with the earlier poster who mentioned a 100% tax rate. I am wondering, therefore, if that poster (I think it was Marxist Bastard), was asking if we would then be a communist state. Just curious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) [blink][marquee]wherein I did elucidate the above poster... (I think it was Marxist Bastard)So now not only do people think I'm a Marxist, but they also attribute the actual Marxists' posts to me. Wonderful. Edited February 16, 2012 by Marxist ßastard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zegh8578 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Money doesn't exist in communism. money always exists. inventing facts doesnt make them factual.2+2=5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 [blink][marquee]wherein I did elucidate the above poster... (I think it was Marxist Bastard)So now not only do people think I'm a Marxist, but they also attribute the actual Marxists' posts to me. Wonderful. I apologize MB. It was not you. It was Quetzlsacatanango who made the above referenced post regarding the 100% tax rate. And just for the record. I neither think you are a Marxist nor a Bastard. Nor would I care in either case... It is your prerogative to be whomever you choose to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quetzlsacatanango Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Sorry, not sure which 'above poster' you mean. I mentioned a 100% tax because you stated that taxation is not related to morality. If that's true, then you must think there are no moral issues involved with a 100% tax rate.I mentioned communism (philosophy, not political system), because it would be exceedingly hard to think a 100% tax was acceptable, but find communism unacceptable, without some blatant contradictions, or what Orwell would describe as Doublethink.Which is not to imply that you or anyone else feels a particular way about communism, but I suspect most people think of themselves as anti-communist, and I wanted to highlight how that should inform their view of a 100% tax and the morality thereof. Also, since some people seem to be confused on the point, and maybe don't want to read through all the previous pages, I have never stated that taxation, in itself, is theft, or immoral for that matter. I stated that *involuntary* taxation is theft, theft is immoral, therefore involuntary taxation is immoral. A voluntary tax, such as a sales tax, is perfectly fine with me. Others may disagree of course. Edited February 16, 2012 by Quetzlsacatanango Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts