The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Eddy Baby on June 24, 2014, 11:52:06 AM
-
The obligatory thread about this.
The phrase "it's a nice idea on paper" is not allowed to be used in this thread.
-
Well, it is a nice idea on paper but, in reality, I don't think it works very well.
-
It's a nice idea on paper.
-
I now realise my fatal mistake
-
I now realise my fatal mistake
Indeed.
On a more serious note, I don't "believe" in it, although it works because there are places where it is working. The definition of "working" in this instance is subject to interpretation.
-
Communism is like having a big dick; A bunch of asians want it.
-
It can work, it just doesn't.
-
I think it could work if all humans were dead.
-
Communism works for machines only.
-
Communism works if you are the one in charge.
-
My personal opinion is that obviously it can't work. The road to communism has been begun by several countries, and it has never worked for any. Why would anyone believe in something that has failed like, a dozen times? In addition, the amount of deaths for which the struggle for communism is directly responsible is sickening. I really don't see how it's OK for some boring student to go round praising communism, really. It's not OK to do that with national socialism, so why is it OK to do it with communism?
-
It can work quite well for very small communities.
-
It's a n- Just because it hasn't worked yet doesn't mean it will at some point, kinda like nuclear power, y'know.
-
I guess it depends on what you mean by "works".
Obviously there are some big, powerful countries that operate under Communism. They appear to be functioning, even though they obviously have problems. But then there are some democratic countries that appear to have problems too.
If you mean, is Communism in practice congruent with its stated ideals? Probably not. But then again, the functioning of any country is probably far from ideal.
In conclusion, I'm not a communist, so please don't blackball me.
-
Capitalism is the ideal socioeconomic system.
-
Capitalism is the ideal socioeconomic system.
For now. It's the one that seems to work the best, but it still creates a shit-ton of problems. Just like communism.
-
To be fair Capitalism's problems are different from Communism's. I'll take having to choose from 50 different kinds of bread to not having any for a week.
-
Capitalism is the ideal socioeconomic system.
For now. It's the one that seems to work the best, but it still creates a shit-ton of problems. Just like communism.
Humans cause problems.
What is the biggest problem associated with capitalism?
-
Capitalism is the ideal socioeconomic system.
For now. It's the one that seems to work the best, but it still creates a shit-ton of problems. Just like communism.
Humans cause problems.
What is the biggest problem associated with capitalism?
The 1%
-
To be fair Capitalism's problems are different from Communism's. I'll take having to choose from 50 different kinds of bread to not having any for a week.
Capitalism's problems are not just bread related. Capitalism causes a lot of societal problems as well. Wage slavery, monopolies, etc. The only goal in capitalism is to create profit. It's a greedy system, which makes it perfect for humanity. ;)
-
Communism works in small communities where everyone knows each other and works together. Communism, funnily enough, stops working above the commune level. Some jackoff in Indiana couldn't give two shits about whether some dumbass in California gets their toilet paper.
-
Do YOU believe in Communism?
I don't, but lot of people here in the US seem to want it.
-
It's a n- Just because it hasn't worked yet doesn't mean it will at some point, kinda like nuclear power, y'know.
Except the technology needed for nuclear power can improve. The technology needed for communism (ie. rewiring the brain) will not be around for the foreseeable future.
I also wonder whether communists realise how much progress is due to capitalism. Under communism there would need to be full employment, otherwise it kind of defeats the point of communism (worker's paradise and all). And when there's full employment, there's no competition and almost no progress gets made. Why would a company find a way of making steel quicker if it means that 1000 workers get made redundant?
And if everyone lives by the 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' creed, what happens when I want some 'luxury' item? Say I want a guitar. Ok, here's your guitar. What if I want a flute now? Can I have that? Two flutes?
So either, communism allows for every member of society to have everything they want (so, a system that assumes infinite resources, which is the very thing they berate capitalism for), or a system arises that dictates who gets what and when. So you'd either flat out not be allowed the things you want, or a huge, bloated bureaucracy arises (sound familiar?).
-
I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
-
Do go on.
Edit: Actually don't, I assume you're going to say 'Actually communism is a stateless society, etc etc.'
1. I'm not sure how that has any bearing on what I just said.
2. Even if it does, I assume you believe in the necessity of some kind of temporary dominance of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to transition to full communism. How would that overcome these issues? And while we're on the subject, why would anyone think that the dictatorship of the proletariat will just 'go away' over time?
-
It can work quite well for very small communities.
It seems to work quite well for ants and bees, and they can have some pretty big communities.
-
It can work quite well for very small communities.
It seems to work quite well for ants and bees, and they can have some pretty big communities.
Does it really work well for them, though? Have they invented medicine or videogames yet?
-
Ants and bees are both very angry creatures, probably due to communism.
-
Communism works in small communities where everyone knows each other and works together. Communism, funnily enough, stops working above the commune level. Some jackoff in Indiana couldn't give two shits about whether some dumbass in California gets their toilet paper.
I don't even know that it works in that case. At some point, someone will feel as though they're doing more than their fair share of the work, and hoard bits of their labour instead of sharing it equally with everyone else.
-
Communism works in small communities where everyone knows each other and works together. Communism, funnily enough, stops working above the commune level. Some jackoff in Indiana couldn't give two shits about whether some dumbass in California gets their toilet paper.
I don't even know that it works in that case. At some point, someone will feel as though they're doing more than their fair share of the work, and hoard bits of their labour instead of sharing it equally with everyone else.
I think that capitalists shoot themselves in the foot with this argument sometimes. Although humans are naturally greedy, above all they have a sense of justice. Therefore, the argument shouldn't be "but humans are naturally greedy," but "but humans are naturally just." Why should I, a hard-working, responsible type, get only what I need when a guy who does fuck all all day gets twice as much? Or does communism need a 'need-police'?
-
Communism works in small communities where everyone knows each other and works together. Communism, funnily enough, stops working above the commune level. Some jackoff in Indiana couldn't give two shits about whether some dumbass in California gets their toilet paper.
I don't even know that it works in that case. At some point, someone will feel as though they're doing more than their fair share of the work, and hoard bits of their labour instead of sharing it equally with everyone else.
I think that capitalists shoot themselves in the foot with this argument sometimes. Although humans are naturally greedy, above all they have a sense of justice. Therefore, the argument shouldn't be "but humans are naturally greedy," but "but humans are naturally just." Why should I, a hard-working, responsible type, get only what I need when a guy who does fuck all all day gets twice as much? Or does communism need a 'need-police'?
No, that's still greed.
Someone who has a sense of justice would become a police officer or a doctor without doing it for the money, and shouldn't get mad if they're paid the same as a trash collector. Equal pay would promote people to become part of a certain profession because they want to, not because it pays well. We have several terrible doctors all over the country because they went to medical school solely because it would make them a lot of money. Is that how society should run? Obviously it's working, but it's still fucked up.
-
Imagine you're a binman. You do your job well. You collect all your bins.
But there's another guy that fucks around all day, makes a huge mess, is always late, and is essentially a fuck up.
However when it comes to tea time, he always grabs as much food as he can fit on his plate, and ends up throwing most of it away.
You, on the other hand, only take as much as you feel okay taking, knowing that the food needs to go around everybody.
How can this man be punished for his behaviour?
In a normal society, he would be punished by losing his job. Under communism, he would remain unpunished and free to do as he wishes.
We have several terrible doctors all over the country because they went to medical school solely because it would make them a lot of money.
Сitatioи иээdэd
wait
Яатioиaliту иээdэd
-
In a normal society, he would be punished by losing his job. Under communism, he would remain unpunished and free to do as he wishes.
Why wouldn't he lose his job under communism? They could just transfer him to a worse job. Or throw him in prison. Communism isn't that set in stone. There are many variations. Either way, there are people like that in high-paying professions all over the country now (see: congress) and they are rarely punished. Most people at the top of the food chain under capitalism are crooked businessmen/politicians who played the system to make money, see: Comcast. Under communism, that would be impossible.
Please keep in mind that I don't think communism works.
-
They
Who ???
-
They
Who ???
What ???
-
They could just transfer him to a worse job. Or throw him in prison.
Who are the magic job transferers?
-
They could just transfer him to a worse job. Or throw him in prison.
Who are the magic job transferers?
I think you're confusing communism with anarchy.
The communist state would employ its own law enforcement/military/whatever. Communism usually ends up leading to a single-party monopoly which would control such things.
I don't think the bare-bones theory of communism has ever been implemented the way Karl Marx would have liked. Therefore, I'm pulling examples from real-world communism: which did have leaders and a functioning form of government, albeit most had state capitalist economies which admittedly undermines the point.
Also, under a communist state I think "taking too much food" would be impossible to begin with as the food would be portioned out anyways. Someone would have to resort to violence or stealing to get more food, which would land them in prison or just executed. Basic forceful deterrence is usually the preferred method of control under communism (and most other governments too).
-
ITT: some people think lazy employees are unique to Communism....
-
ITT: some people think lazy employees are unique to Communism....
Lazy employees in a communistic society affect the society as a whole much more than they would in a capitalistic one.
-
I think the main point here (which others have already touched on) is that Communism works: it just doesn't work very well.
-
I think the main point here (which others have already touched on) is that Communism works: it just doesn't work very well.
Communism works up until you remember that modern humans are involved. It's a logical system designed for everyone, but it requires the understanding and cooperation of everyone in order to work. People are altogether too stupid and selfish for Communism, at least right now.
Current system isn't capitalist either, most western governments have their hands all over the economy. Which is needed really, because a free market is shit when it comes to fairness.
-
Free markets ARE fair in that you tend to receive proportionately to what youcontribute to society.
-
Free markets ARE fair in that you tend to receive proportionately to what youcontribute to society.
Until someone owns a monopoly on toilet paper.
-
Free markets ARE fair in that you tend to receive proportionately to what youcontribute to society.
Troll bait, Sean. Gina Rhinehart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Rinehart) contributes very little to our society, besides being a massive (both figuratively and literally) whinger in the media. She pays fuck all in taxes and receives huge concessions from the government. And she sits on a huge fortune that she refuses to share even with her children. Her legacy will be giant holes in the ground and a destroyed economy that failed to shift from a resource based system to something else.
-
Free markets ARE fair in that you tend to receive proportionately to what youcontribute to society.
No.
-
Also the fact that most scientists around the world are underpaid and work extremely hard. You get paid more as a successful tradie over here than as a career researcher, and some tradies do nothing but simple carpentry.
There's billions of examples contradicting that statement really.
-
I think all we need to do is look at the rap music industry to know that Sean is talking bullshit.
-
I think all we need to do is look at the rap music industry to know that Sean is talking bullshit.
Well, you could simply say that is an extension of what he said. The offering of entertainment is part of society, whether you'd like to think so or not. There are people who value it a lot and will pay quite a bit of money for it, subsequently, since the entertainment is made by one person, a large portion of the money goes to that one person. In the case of entertainers, many are irreplaceable. No other entertainer can do quite the same thing they do. They're unique and unique pays.
-
ITT: Still no discussion of communism, EB's trolling reigns supreme.
-
ITT: Still no discussion of communism, EB's trolling reigns supreme.
Communism discussions always devolve into no true Scotsman arguments because someone will come in and talk about how anything that isn't Marxism isn't communism or something. They're boring.
-
But in this case it doesn't even seem to be Marxism. It just seems to be "something that's objectively bad but I won't tell you what just yet".
-
Sampling other people's music and rapping over it should not net you millions of dollars. I'm sorry you feel that way, Rushy. Although, I know you are playing devil's advocate, and I respect that.
And I've posted a lot about communism, PP.
-
Sampling other people's music and rapping over it should not net you millions of dollars. I'm sorry you feel that way, Rushy. Although, I know you are playing devil's advocate, and I respect that.
And I've posted a lot about communism, PP.
Your personal opinion of how much something is or isn't worth is completely irrelevant to society. A lot of people think it is worth quite a bit, therefore it is. In the case of value an argument from majority is actually correct. The majority's opinion literally becomes fact regardless of all other factors.
-
Yes, let's form our society based on teens who can't form a sentence and full grown adults who wear clocks around their necks. I'm sure everything will turn out just fine.
This is why we need communism. Some people just don't deserve freedom.
-
ITT: I don't like thing so it doesn't deserve to make money
-
In communism, wouldn't all entertainers receive equal pay regardless of popularity?
-
The communist state
Aha.
Also, it seems like people are assuming that there exists only the choice between communism and essentially anarcho-capitalism. In an economic sense I'm extremely left wing, but would want to see such policies introduced into a capitalist society.
-
Yes, let's form our society based on teens who can't form a sentence and full grown adults who wear clocks around their necks. I'm sure everything will turn out just fine.
This is why we need communism. Some people just don't deserve freedom.
I blame the parents.
-
Yes, let's form our society based on teens who can't form a sentence and full grown adults who wear clocks around their necks. I'm sure everything will turn out just fine.
Incredible opinions.
-
This is why we need communism. Some people just don't deserve freedom.
Your latter sentence doesn't agree with the former.
-
Obviously it depends on the general ethical standing of the culture or country you implement it in. For example, an authoritarian society with an advanced sense of morality will be more conducive to a better life than a democratic society with a regressed sense of morality.
I voted no because I haven't seen it work yet on a massive scale without millions of people getting slaughtered.
-
Communism seems to work well in small, poor communities when nobody has anything to put them too much above everybody else. (To quote my grandmother "We always used to leave the door unlocked where we lived - nobody had anything worth nicking.")