How To Save The World

[TheListener]

So this may be too large of an intellectual venture for us to embark on, considering the world is generally in shambles at the moment, but I've been wondering why no political and/or economic combination of systems has really been universally successful. This is generally an economic debate considering economics is the basis of well being in contemporary life.

Firstly, let's establish the objective of making everyone better off. This is the axiom which connects most economic systems; allowing people, through the use of their own devices to gain "happiness". And this is where the trouble begins, a free market economy does exactly as stated - allows people to attain their own definition of happiness (be it monetary success or love or health) through their own devices and only through them. In Marxism (/communism) a man could, potentially, refuse to work, yet still obtain his portion of food, money and healthcare; no incentive is created for hard workers considering, if you were to direly follow the manifesto, a doctor would be making generally the same wage as a "proletariat" worker in a factory with little education.

Personally, I've never agreed with Marxism considering it is economically flawed as working hard does not provide very fruitful results and therefore an economy is doomed to grow at an extremely slow pace with an utter lack of specialised workers (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc).

Now, let's look at the free market; once again, I'm approaching this through it's most orthodox (some would call it "extreme") forms. A free market or "laisse faire" economic system implies little to no governmental intervention in economic transactions. Some would pronounce a perfectly free market economy as inevitably facing collapse; I'm one of these people. Market failure would be rife - the "free rider problem" wherein universal taxes when not applied mean that consumers, even though not paying for a good, could potentially use it - public goods and free goods would not be supplied (street lamps, paved roads, public transport) as these are services provided by the state - "demerit goods" would be oversupplied while the opposite trend would occur with "merit goods". Generally, the free market economy allows not only for unadultered self-preservation but also for exploitation and the abuse of monopoly power. However, looking at Honk Kong, the world's most-orthodox incidence of free market, one could extrapolate the opposite - that free market leads to fast growth and the provision of necessary goods and services.

What about a mixed economy? Well, Sweden is a prime example, the Human Development index has on a number of occassions ranked it as the country with the highest economic development. Keynesianism seems to work fine for many countries. Economically, I can find very few faults with this system and usually I do agree with it; however, it does put constraints on innovation and risk t[SIZE=2]aking, and the rewards for entrepreneurial activity isn't very large - a reason for the large exodus of businesses from Sweden and Norway to the UK, Ireland and the US in the late 90s.

A book that I have brought up numerous times and hope everyone will someday read (not because of it's being practical as it isn't but simply for it's ideas), Ishmael by Daniel Quinn suggests we all revert to our origins as hunter-gatherers. Quinn explains that we have since become more depressed, more violent, more greedy and more arrogant. Humans in pre-recorded history have simply killed what they have needed, they didn't abuse the Earth nor did they place themselves on a higher scale than other animals. If they died due to disease, they allowed themselves to, if they were eaten by a mountain lion because they were too weak, too slow or not cunning enough, this was accepted. The strongest survived and passed on their genes. This is referred to as evolution and it doesn't apply in the same way it used to anymore. We foster the weak and heal the sick nowadays and the presumably "strong" are not generally appreciated.


Maybe we put too much emphasis on human life? This deals with evolution but also with the foreseeable disastrous future which lies ahead. At the rate the human population is growing, scientists predict that in 43 years we will reach 10 billion.

So how can we sustain ourselves? We seem to be having a hard time doing so at the present so how can we imagine feeding and/or clothing and/or educating and/or presenting with viable opportunities 10 billion? At any rate, how can we emphathize or feel at all for the gross number of people who won't have food or shelter? At the moment 1/3 human beings lives on less than 2 USD a day, I only expect that number to grow, and 33% of 10 billion is 3.3 billion. That's a lot of people to cry for - I myself find it hard to feel sorry for the constant stream of images of emaciated children, flea bitten dogs and abused boys and girls which I'm bombarded with on a daily basis. "Stalin" once noted that "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic," and I find it hard to dispute this notion.

Perhaps humanity is doomed, I can find no viable option for complete and utter salvation unless I drag in concepts of science fiction - space travel - settling on other planets - harvesting oxygen as a powerful fuel - a massive war which annhihilates half the world's population. "Did you hear about the man who fell off of a 200 storey building? On the way down he kept on reassuring himself 'So far so good. So far so good.'"




Sorry about any mistakes, inaccuracies or stupid statements I made. This was all a sort of stream-of-conciousness thing, didn't stop to reread.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Geckat]

Einstein had about twelve brothers and sisters, all but one or two were mentally insufficient in one way or another. Nowadays, value has to be placed on all human life. Why? Because everyone is just as mortal as everyone else. Way back when, before language was even invented, the strong survived because people died because of things that the strong could avoid or combat. A good fighter could resist that mountain lion. A good climber wouldn't die falling down a mountain face. But what are we to evolve into today? Fire-proof skin? Unstressed minds? Psychic premonition to help with the lottery? You may think that everyone living on the streets is there because they're too damn lazy to work, or they have (or had in the past) some insane drug addiction, but you meet them and chances are they just had bad luck, whether it be fire or bad investment or some sudden disability that made them lose their job. No Darwin-slung human could ever avoid these things, and that's why democracy doesn't work. The rich get richer, while those literally down on their luck only get poorer. Then they just stop being noticed while the rich just try to make more and more money. So eventually we get a society simililar to those you hear all about in History - those that usually involve some radical revolution of the people.

This is why I'm a democratic socialist. Everyone gets their say in what they want the economy to become, but also make their own way in their life. Those who are unable to are given the chance to make their lives better, be it in free education or funding to find a job or start a business in the way they want to.

I like this thread, Listener, but I don't like your attitude. You gotta look at the world in a better light. If all you go off of is CNN, you're just going to get depressed. Find out stuff on your own, look at all possible situations and search out the good stuff; you'll feel a lot better and begin to see hope for this planet once again. Next time you reply, I hope to see a much happier forumer :) .

[TheListener]

You may think that everyone living on the streets is there because they're too damn lazy to work, or they have (or had in the past) some insane drug addiction, but you meet them and chances are they just had bad luck, whether it be fire or bad investment or some sudden disability that made them lose their job. No Darwin-slung human could ever avoid these things, and that's why democracy doesn't work.

I understand that and as Darwin stated in his book; evolution does allow for bad luck, for the strong or the gifted to be caught by surprise by the lion, or to have placed stocks in the wrong firm - that's why evolution takes so much time. What I'm saying is that evolution doesn't stop with us and it's simply arrogant to imply that - homo sapien sapien isn't the end all be all result of molecular advancement, we aren't the solution to the question that is this universe. If we are, I'm about to get a whole lot more depressed.


This is why I'm a democratic socialist. Everyone gets their say in what they want the economy to become, but also make their own way in their life. Those who are unable to are given the chance to make their lives better, be it in free education or funding to find a job or start a business in the way they want to.

Social democracy is lovely and I agree with you on your reasons why you adhere to it. However, I'm just going to play the devil's advocate and ask whether or not everyone does deserve to have their opinions voiced? Because, most assuredly some people's opinions are simply more important than others, no? That's why we have heads of states. Democracy is lovely in theory, but when held up against the light of practice, a whole lot of dumb people can make a collectively dumb decision (and this is a purely personal example - voting Bush Jr. into office).

I like this thread, Listener, but I don't like your attitude. You gotta look at the world in a better light. If all you go off of is CNN, you're just going to get depressed. Find out stuff on your own, look at all possible situations and search out the good stuff; you'll feel a lot better and begin to see hope for this planet once again. Next time you reply, I hope to see a much happier forumer :) .

To be honest I'm not a very optimistic person in real life and thus it sort of translates into my political ideology. However, most of the time during my first post I was just flinging ideas around, just thoughts - many of which may have been silly enough. I expect this thread will go off on a lot of tangeants considering it deals with a lot of things, but I really don't understand why we haven't figured something out! More people than ever are going to universities and education. We have more people on the planet than ever before! More original ideas being manifested - but we still can't come up with some ethical, morally right solution to create a firm yet fair global society.

[DarkMirror]

We dont need to evolve our bodies any more, all we need to do is to make better tools.

[TheListener]

We dont need to evolve our bodies any more, all we need to do is to make better tools.

That's absolutely ridiculous! Homo habilis could have said the same thing - "We don't need to walk straight, we just need better tools!". Of course we need to evolve! Human beings die every day of infectious diseases, or crippling abnormalities, and because of psychological self infliction. Human beings harbour hatred for one another and are probably the most violent species alive (considering they "murder" not only animals, but also each other). There are an innumerable amount of faults with human beings; and like I said - you to deny this just shows how arrogant you are.

[bouncl]

If we had better tools such as medicine, would we need to evolve to vaccinate ourselves, if we had tools to artificailly evolve, would we need to go with nature?

[TheListener]

If we had tools to artificailly evolve, would we need to go with nature?

We'd still be evolving - and that's the point.

Plus, we can't ever create tools to artificially evolve because we don't necessarily know what we need. We don't know how to cure cancer or what have you. We don't know whether or not growing larger lips or smaller hands makes eating food more efficient. So that's not really a possibility.

[Geckat]

According to the previously mentioned Mr. Darwin, God of Numbers ( :P ), humanity has stopped physically evolving for the most part. All we've got that evolves still is our brain, because really that's all we ever use.

However, I agree with TheListener that people do make stupid decisions. I almost died from being torn between laughing and crying when Dubya got his second term of office. The people complain about what a dumbass he is for four years, and then...ah, hell, let's vote him in again O_o . But the thing I'm thinking of is actually utilizing technology, so that the need for a room of blithering morons making decisions for us is gone. With the internet, telephones, text messaging, whatever...nearly everyone in a country would have the ability to contribute to all decisions made.

There are two things you have to know about the majority of people when it comes to excersising one's sufferage: 1) People will flame each other to hell for not voting, and 2) Most people are really too lazy to keep up with politics, and so just vote for the person they always vote for regardless. This is how I believe Bush got back in, and why the Liberals had such a long run in Canada.

If people weren't pressured to vote, and only voted when they really knew what they were getting their country into, I think things would go much better democratically. And if voting was brought down to the people, and voting became so commonplace that you wouldn't be crucified for being apathetic in some areas, only the informed would be inclined to post their mark on a poll or text in 'YES ON 189", we wouldn't be troubled so much by your dad cancelling out your NDP vote with a Conservative vote because 'It's who I've always voted for". Voting wouldn't be such a huge deal, because decisions would be made weekly by the masses and an election for those who proposed change or preservation wouldn't be a major event as it is in North America today.

I hope I made that concise and comprehendable O_o .

[Icarus]

I heard my name and came running!

Forgive me if I pass upon a point already made. I only skimmed everyone's post.

Firstly, the evolution thing.

Man has disallowed himself to evolve anymore due to his rebellion against natural laws. He uses his mind to shield himself from harm, thus stunting evolutionary growth. Evolution is contingent on danger. It won't happen unless the entire human species is in danger of extinction.

The economic and political process has already been laid out by karl marx. I myself am a communist. I strive for the day the world will be united under communism, but there are many conditions that have to be met first.

Different stages of a nations (or a peoples) life require different types of government. War requires a much more central and authoritative government, when peace is open to popular debate. The thing you have to understand about marxism, is that it explains the evolutionary nature of government and politics. Bartering became mercantilism. Mercantilism became capitalism. Capitalism will become socialism, and socialism will become the ultimate goal, communism.

As has already been pointed out, democracy right now doesn't work because the majority of people are stupid. This doesn't mean democracy is always or absolutely ineffective. Look at greece, or rome. We have to change the detrimental obligations of society, and educate our people first, THEN we can have an effective democracy. Democracy is part of the ultimate goal, or utopia if you will, because I honestly doubt that any one person will always be right. Ideas, propositions, legislation, needs to be challenged and tested by outsiders through debate.

Onto the comments made about marxism...

First, allow me to make one of the many paramount distinctions between socialism and communism clear.

Socialism: wages are determined by amount of work, completely independent of capitalistic factors like the value of the product.

Communism: wages are determined by what you need to live a healthy life. again, completely independent of capitalist factors.

So, listener, in socialism, the janitor would make more than the doctor if the janitor was more hard-working. In communism, the janitor would make the same amount of money a doctor makes, because thats what he needs to survive.

The incentive to work depends on the intellect of the individual. Communism isn't meant for opportunist retards. You have to have the right values, and you have to have the right priorities. A communist mindset is "I do my job for my fellows" as opposed to the capitalist "I do my job for my paycheck".

Also, allow me to point out that communism isn't meant to be an effective economy(although that is yet to be tested), regarding a nation, it's supposed to be the morally correct economy, where everyone is given equal opportunities, and the right mindsets are promoted, like hard work.

also, i'm delighted the listener has read Ishmael. It's my favorite book ever (and not cause i agree with it, cuz I dont). It's the incentive behind my battle.net ID.

So basically, back on the general topic, The next step is to wipe out the evils of popular society, like conformism, educate our peoples, and slowly move towards socialism. Afterwards, we repeat the process, and hopefully end up at a democratic communism.

I know I wrote a lot of text. i don't like reading a lot off of a screen either, but please read all of it.

[Oblongato]

Communism (or socialism for that matter) will never work because such a system does not appeal to the nature of human beings. While there may be some humans willing to subscribe to these systems, self interest is something that has always existed in humans and it always seems to find an outlet. In communism, it could be argued that this outlet was corruption, the only way to get ahead. Additionally, why get off your ass when you get paid anyway? Why work well when no one recognizes or appreciates it? People only work because they benefit from their work. In communism (and to an extent in socialism) there is little or no benefit. Therefore no satisfaction at a job well done, no satisfaction of having achieved anything.

We talk about perfect societies. But a perfect society will never last long. Conflict is part of human character, and just as with biology, psychology, too, throws out its mutations along the way. The longest lasting societies on this planet tended to be brutal and oppressive. That was the price of peace. The Chinese dynasties, the Egyptian Pharaohs, the Mayans, the Incas. Oppression, control, ultimately violence: these were a large part of all of these societies.

I would suggest that humans are complex, changeable creatures who will never submit to living under a single system for very long. The post-war Germans worked themselves half to death - first to survive, then to produce the economic miracle. The result? A generation of spoiled, lazy children and welfare cheats. There is no such thing as stability in a complex system.

And while each individual generally regrets the bad times, I would argue that these bad times are a natural part of a healthy psychological makeup. Things can go as planned or as desired only so long before we get itchy, if not consciously, then subconsciously.

Americans were once thought of as among the hardest-working people in the world. But with prosperity, that all changed. Now they are famous for being among the fattest, and to some extent laziest and stupidest, people in the world. The fruits of prosperity...

As it happens, a larger percentage of humans live longer lives today than ever in the past. Whether their lives are happier than in the past is debatable, but we should avoid seeing past civilizations in some holy light without also focusing on their dark side.

Savor every day you are not at war, dying of disease, or being forced to toil against your will for a pittance. Because someday it will be the last.

[Prozerran]

Not to sway this off topic a good mile or more, but this is a discussion about economy. I believe too much emphasis has been placed on the material - money - and the justification? Because if we don't have some form of commerce, we won't have a means to grow. It's a double-edged sword in so many ways. Sure, if no one had a reason to get up and go to work, no one would. That's the assumption so many people make. But that's not true. There are millions of people that may continue doing the work they do even if they never needed another dime. Why? Because it offers purpose, it offers value to one's life.

Why do we really need an economic system? The real reason an economic system exists is to create a medium for societies to interract and trade goods and services. The economy exists also as a vacuum in a balancing act of power. In essence, those with money have the means, and those with the means have the power. We feel empowered when we earn money, when we have money, because we have means to buy products and services - taking part in this trade, this commerce, this American Dream.

It's all a shroud. The economic system does not promote a better life. It does not promote harder work = more money. In fact, because of its very notion of competition, there will always be someone without money. And that's when it will hit us hardest... when a small number of groups have all the money and the vast majority of people have none. That's when society will break down economically, and maybe it will happen again and again. They'll find ways to keep it going, find ways to sustain the economy, but eventually well-educated people will come through to see it for what it really is... another medium for the greedy bastards of society to control everyone else.

I'm bitter. The "free-market" system of trade is a fucking joke. Anyone who sees monetary gain as a means to value the work they do is deluded and absorbed in the very shroud of capitalism that serves as a pillar of democratic society. I hope capitalism ends... it's a finite system of materialistic value only.

[Icarus]

Prozerran, an economic system is not necessary only for international trade, but also so a nation can pay and distribute funds for industries within it so the luxuries humans experience today can sustain themselves. Also, money is necessary just to defeat all the faults of simple barter. It forces unfair capitalist control than even the notion of money does. Not everyone has the right product at the right time. Joe, the grape grower, needs bread, but the baker already has enough grapes, and wants wood to construct a treehouse, so the only one getting bread is the carpenter. Money is necessary so everyone can interact financially.

people forget that in every "competition", theres the winner, and all the losers. The point of communism is to give everyone equal opportunities by eliminating social classes, and financial inequality, to compensate for the fact that not every human is created equal.

@oblongato: You first paragraph simply described the horrible, selfish capitalist mindset that marxism opposes. People change. Some people who are selfish will realize they shouldn't be, and will work for the bettermind of society as a whole (I actually made a thread about that, which ended up disappointing).

No one can make accurate predictions about a perfect society, simply because one has never existed, let alone one a large scale.

America has turned out the way it has because it's grown in an imperialistic matter, not in a progressive manner.

[Oblongato]

Not to sway this off topic a good mile or more, but this is a discussion about economy. I believe too much emphasis has been placed on the material - money - and the justification? Because if we don't have some form of commerce, we won't have a means to grow. It's a double-edged sword in so many ways. Sure, if no one had a reason to get up and go to work, no one would. That's the assumption so many people make. But that's not true. There are millions of people that may continue doing the work they do even if they never needed another dime. Why? Because it offers purpose, it offers value to one's life.

The problem is that not everyone wants to work for work's sake. And those who want to work for gain become a problem for those who just want to work. And the ones who work for gain tend to be more motivated, granting them a competitive edge. And we are back to capitalism vs. communism.

Do you feel no sense of injustice when someone gets something he did not work for and therefore does not deserve? Would you sit idly by and watch a colleague slack off and then get more money than you because he needs more money to live? It would make my blood boil - that's the essence of injustice in my book.

Why do we really need an economic system? The real reason an economic system exists is to create a medium for societies to interract and trade goods and services. The economy exists also as a vacuum in a balancing act of power. In essence, those with money have the means, and those with the means have the power. We feel empowered when we earn money, when we have money, because we have means to buy products and services - taking part in this trade, this commerce, this American Dream.

It's all a shroud. The economic system does not promote a better life. It does not promote harder work = more money. In fact, because of its very notion of competition, there will always be someone without money. And that's when it will hit us hardest... when a small number of groups have all the money and the vast majority of people have none. That's when society will break down economically, and maybe it will happen again and again. They'll find ways to keep it going, find ways to sustain the economy, but eventually well-educated people will come through to see it for what it really is... another medium for the greedy bastards of society to control everyone else.

I'm bitter. The "free-market" system of trade is a fucking joke. Anyone who sees monetary gain as a means to value the work they do is deluded and absorbed in the very shroud of capitalism that serves as a pillar of democratic society. I hope capitalism ends... it's a finite system of materialistic value only.

You said it yourself; it's a double-edged sword. Capitalism is many of the bad things you mention, just as it is also many of the good things you do not list. Ask people who lived under communism about that Utopia. You'll find some who liked it, and many more who didn't. You can't please all of the people all of the time. I know some people who lived under communism. They thought it sucked.

An additional irony: under a non-capitalistic system we would not be on this forum typing away on our computers. We would be dying of disease, slaving for some corrupt dictator or toiling in the fields until the ripe old age of 35 before dying exhausted, but fulfilled (perhaps!).

[Gunmonk]

So this may be too large of an intellectual venture for us to embark on, considering the world is generally in shambles at the moment, but I've been wondering why no political and/or economic combination of systems has really been universally successful. This is generally an economic debate considering economics is the basis of well being in contemporary life.

Firstly, let's establish the objective of making everyone better off. This is the axiom which connects most economic systems; allowing people, through the use of their own devices to gain "happiness". And this is where the trouble begins, a free market economy does exactly as stated - allows people to attain their own definition of happiness (be it monetary success or love or health) through their own devices and only through them. In Marxism (/communism) a man could, potentially, refuse to work, yet still obtain his portion of food, money and healthcare; no incentive is created for hard workers considering, if you were to direly follow the manifesto, a doctor would be making generally the same wage as a "proletariat" worker in a factory with little education.

Personally, I've never agreed with Marxism considering it is economically flawed as working hard does not provide very fruitful results and therefore an economy is doomed to grow at an extremely slow pace with an utter lack of specialised workers (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc).

Now, let's look at the free market; once again, I'm approaching this through it's most orthodox (some would call it "extreme") forms. A free market or "laisse faire" economic system implies little to no governmental intervention in economic transactions. Some would pronounce a perfectly free market economy as inevitably facing collapse; I'm one of these people. Market failure would be rife - the "free rider problem" wherein universal taxes when not applied mean that consumers, even though not paying for a good, could potentially use it - public goods and free goods would not be supplied (street lamps, paved roads, public transport) as these are services provided by the state - "demerit goods" would be oversupplied while the opposite trend would occur with "merit goods". Generally, the free market economy allows not only for unadultered self-preservation but also for exploitation and the abuse of monopoly power. However, looking at Honk Kong, the world's most-orthodox incidence of free market, one could extrapolate the opposite - that free market leads to fast growth and the provision of necessary goods and services.

What about a mixed economy? Well, Sweden is a prime example, the Human Development index has on a number of occassions ranked it as the country with the highest economic development. Keynesianism seems to work fine for many countries. Economically, I can find very few faults with this system and usually I do agree with it; however, it does put constraints on innovation and risk t[size=2]aking, and the rewards for entrepreneurial activity isn't very large - a reason for the large exodus of businesses from Sweden and Norway to the UK, Ireland and the US in the late 90s.

A book that I have brought up numerous times and hope everyone will someday read (not because of it's being practical as it isn't but simply for it's ideas), Ishmael by Daniel Quinn suggests we all revert to our origins as hunter-gatherers. Quinn explains that we have since become more depressed, more violent, more greedy and more arrogant. Humans in pre-recorded history have simply killed what they have needed, they didn't abuse the Earth nor did they place themselves on a higher scale than other animals. If they died due to disease, they allowed themselves to, if they were eaten by a mountain lion because they were too weak, too slow or not cunning enough, this was accepted. The strongest survived and passed on their genes. This is referred to as evolution and it doesn't apply in the same way it used to anymore. We foster the weak and heal the sick nowadays and the presumably "strong" are not generally appreciated.


Maybe we put too much emphasis on human life? This deals with evolution but also with the foreseeable disastrous future which lies ahead. At the rate the human population is growing, scientists predict that in 43 years we will reach 10 billion.

So how can we sustain ourselves? We seem to be having a hard time doing so at the present so how can we imagine feeding and/or clothing and/or educating and/or presenting with viable opportunities 10 billion? At any rate, how can we emphathize or feel at all for the gross number of people who won't have food or shelter? At the moment 1/3 human beings lives on less than 2 USD a day, I only expect that number to grow, and 33% of 10 billion is 3.3 billion. That's a lot of people to cry for - I myself find it hard to feel sorry for the constant stream of images of emaciated children, flea bitten dogs and abused boys and girls which I'm bombarded with on a daily basis. "Stalin" once noted that "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic," and I find it hard to dispute this notion.

Perhaps humanity is doomed, I can find no viable option for complete and utter salvation unless I drag in concepts of science fiction - space travel - settling on other planets - harvesting oxygen as a powerful fuel - a massive war which annhihilates half the world's population. "Did you hear about the man who fell off of a 200 storey building? On the way down he kept on reassuring himself 'So far so good. So far so good.'"




Sorry about any mistakes, inaccuracies or stupid statements I made. This was all a sort of stream-of-conciousness thing, didn't stop to reread.

Thanks for the feedback.


Maybe we as americans/western europeans dont realize how bad it is outside of our own little worlds. I mean I guess since we are talking about democracy and the like I could bring up a classic example in history. Consider the wiemar republic established shortly after WWI, there were many that were pissed. Pissed at the war reperations, pissed at the inflation. One day a semi young man named adolf stages a failed coup. He goes to prison hated by all he comes out having already written a book called mein kampf (my struggle) and hailed as savior, great one. My point is this, some people just cannot handle democracy. Perhaps, though, it will evolve out of tribes as western government styles did. give the state of the world though I must say that it is far from happening in our lifetimes.

[Icarus]

Oblongato, that's the stereotypical setup every attempted "communism" has experienced. That isn't communism. Communism is purely economic. The fact that nearly every psuedo communist nation was ruled by an immoral dictator is coincidence, and circumstantial.

There is yet to be a nation, or even a large society, to live under real communism.

I find it funny that you said he didn't list all the pros about capitalism, yet you didn't either.

People deserve only however much they need to live. If an old man is suffering from cancer, and you're 25 and healthy and working in industry, he will and SHOULD be payed more, because you're supposed to be doing what you do not for the personal benefit, but actually to help the old man with cancer survive and live a full life.

Injustice is when the strong prey on the weak simply because they can. That action is pretty much the base, even definition, of capitalism.

[Oblongato]

people forget that in every "competition", theres the winner, and all the losers. The point of communism is to give everyone equal opportunities by eliminating social classes, and financial inequality, to compensate for the fact that not every human is created equal.

Communism definitely has noble ideals. But based on my reading and my discussions with people who knew communism first-hand, that's not the way it worked. Imagine arbitrarily not being allowed to do what you love because your parents did that. Instead, you would be given a random job that you were perhaps not very good at. There were plenty of people under communism who didn't like that kind of life.

You also state that for every winner there are many losers in capitalism. This I find pretty one-sided. First, everyone who wins has lost, usually many times. Losing is good practice for winning. In a capitalist society one learns to keep fighting. Some people do keep losing, and that's sad, but no sadder than those who are frustrated by a communist system. For the perpetual losers, most capitalist systems do have a safety net for those who fall and can't get up. It's not perfect, but it's more humane than none at all.

@oblongato: You first paragraph simply described the horrible, selfish capitalist mindset that marxism opposes. People change. Some people who are selfish will realize they shouldn't be, and will work for the bettermind of society as a whole (I actually made a thread about that, which ended up disappointing).

No one can make accurate predictions about a perfect society, simply because one has never existed, let alone one a large scale.

America has turned out the way it has because it's grown in an imperialistic matter, not in a progressive manner.

I think there is no single reason why any society is the way it is. The complexity alone is evidence that there are countless factors at work. Societies swing back and forth, have good times, bad times, do good and do evil. The U.S. is no different from any other country that became the dominant power of an age. (Next in line for dominance status: quasi-communist China. I'm not optimistic that human rights and fulfillment will be the top priorities.)

In communism, everyone has to acknowledge the common goal for the system to work. No one is allowed to be selfish or the system breaks down. The communist system ensures that anyone who does insist on getting ahead has to be corrupt, and the corrupt soon gain the upper hand. I don't know anyone at all who would be satisfied living under such a system, especially not the people I know who did live under communism. Reading Marx it all sounds beautiful and moral, but in practice it's ugly, messy and unjust.

[Icarus]

Now you're just ignoring me, and communism in general. Communism, HAS NEVER HAPPENED YET. There are those who like to say they are, those who like to look they are, but it truly has never happened.

Occupation selection has nothing to do with overall communism, although It is one of the versions of it. Communism doesn't require that occupation control.

You have to understand money. Those who are smart, and know the capitalist system, will make money easily. They will continue to make money, using their knowledge of the benefit mechanisms of capitalism. Those who win, win more. Their overall stockpile will build. That's why it's so hard to keep a middle class without being as imperialistic as america is. The rich get richer, and take more from the poor, who get poorer.

You obviously haven't read the marx.

[Oblongato]

Oblongato, that's the stereotypical setup every attempted "communism" has experienced. That isn't communism. Communism is purely economic. The fact that nearly every psuedo communist nation was ruled by an immoral dictator is coincidence, and circumstantial.

I would argue that it is not circumstantial or coincidental that dictators have ruled all communist countries. I would argue that communism actually causes this misery by thwarting a natural human desire to achieve and ensuring that anyone who wants to achieve must become corrupt. The corrupt rise to the top and naturally want to stay there. The fact that this has happened not just once but practically every time communism has been attempted is not mere coincidence.

There is yet to be a nation, or even a large society, to live under real communism.

I find it funny that you said he didn't list all the pros about capitalism, yet you didn't either.

People deserve only however much they need to live. If an old man is suffering from cancer, and you're 25 and healthy and working in industry, he will and SHOULD be payed more, because you're supposed to be doing what you do not for the personal benefit, but actually to help the old man with cancer survive and live a full life.

Injustice is when the strong prey on the weak simply because they can. That action is pretty much the base, even definition, of capitalism.

The pros of capitalism: just look around.

Computers, advances in health care, modern science, education, philanthropy (e.g. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates), safe food, safety in the workplace, film etc. etc.

I'm not saying it's all good. Just the overwhelming bulk of it.

I am not ignoring the impact of imperialism on many countries still experiencing the misery of the after effects. But imperialism is not a direct offshoot of capitalism anyway.

Communist China was on the verge of starvation. Capitalist China is booming. Human rights violations? Bad, but tiny in comparison the the improvements in life for the average Chinese. Basically the same situation in India, Indonesia, the list goes on.

Capitalism is not always the strong preying on the weak. There are hardly any slaves working for capitalist companies. Almost all work there by choice. Why? Because it is better than what they had without. Capitalism is overwhelmingly positive despite its flaws.

You also deliberately twisted my example. The guy with cancer should receive proper health care and be taken care of until he is able to carry his own weight again. This should be covered by the insurance that every employee should pay into. But the lazy guy who just sits around and then collects a larger paycheck should most definitely not get more money than I do. I'll ask again. If you worked next to someone who did nothing and then you got less money, how would you feel? He sleeps, you toil, he collects the reward. Would that be ok for you? It would not be ok for me.

[Icarus]

No it wouldn't be ok, but that's not what communism implies. Members like that are either ignored in deported (in a REAL communism).

Those things you were talking about had absolutely nothing to do with communism, yet imperialism is embedded in capitalism's definition. Are you suggesting that because capitalism exists, that technology exists? that good will exists?

Communist china was on the verge of starvation because it was mao fucking tse tung that was leading it. He was a crazed anti-progressive.

No slaves working for capitalism? most of the american capitalists "slaves" dont live anywhere near america. The ones on the mainland are what you call "employees". You are cheated out of money every single day you live in a capitalist society. Also, you cheat money out of others if you work, especially for a large financial group.

Again, I don't think you should be arguing about communism and capitalism when it's apparent you don't have sufficient knowledge in either of them. I suggest first you read "wealth of nations" and then "capital" volume 1. Then I suggest you actually study about these pseudo-communist nations, and what really happened with them, then study the economic histories of imperialist nations like america and great britain.

[Oblongato]

Now you're just ignoring me, and communism in general. Communism, HAS NEVER HAPPENED YET. There are those who like to say they are, those who like to look they are, but it truly has never happened.

I'm not ignoring you. And forgive me for referring repeatedly to systems that called themselves communist but did not fit your definition.

I do not think that every attempt at communism was fueled by evil in the beginning. I think it is far more likely that each and every time the goal was to implement a fair and just communist system. It's just that it's gone wrong every single time, and I think if you were allowed to implement a communist system, it would go wrong again. That's because I think it ignores very significant aspects of human nature, i.e. the competitive instinct, pride in achievement, selfishness etc.

Occupation selection has nothing to do with overall communism, although It is one of the versions of it. Communism doesn't require that occupation control.

You have to understand money. Those who are smart, and know the capitalist system, will make money easily. They will continue to make money, using their knowledge of the benefit mechanisms of capitalism. Those who win, win more. Their overall stockpile will build. That's why it's so hard to keep a middle class without being as imperialistic as america is. The rich get richer, and take more from the poor, who get poorer.

You obviously haven't read the marx.

What you describe here is an aspect of capitalism that is moderated in every modern capitalistic country. Yes, it's a good idea to be smart in a capitalistic system. But you needn't be corrupt, you can be smart and hard working and succeed. Many people who are just hard working also succeed without being all that smart. Discipline is a good substitute for smart. But capitalism encourages smart. Which gives capitalism a competitive edge, if we are talking real world here. Attacking the rich is also a cheap shot. The rich do not steal their money from the poor and put it in mattresses. They invest it, creating jobs, and thereby opportunities for those not yet rich.

Keep in mind that the capitalism that Marx wrote about no longer exists. Marx did not know capitalism in its moderated form as it exists practically across the globe today. And while I have not read all of it, I suspect he would not write the same things today. Capitalism has evolved tremendously since the early days of exploitation.

[Oblongato]

No slaves working for capitalism? most of the american capitalists "slaves" dont live anywhere near america. The ones on the mainland are what you call "employees". You are cheated out of money every single day you live in a capitalist society. Also, you cheat money out of others if you work, especially for a large financial group.

Please back up all of these statements.


Again, I don't think you should be arguing about communism and capitalism when it's apparent you don't have sufficient knowledge in either of them. I suggest first you read "wealth of nations" and then "capital" volume 1. Then I suggest you actually study about these pseudo-communist nations, and what really happened with them, then study the economic histories of imperialist nations like america and great britain.

Your assertions are absolutely empty without supporting evidence. Naming a book is not a sufficient defense of your assertion. Further, it would be polite of you to address my arguments with more than a questionable appeal to authority.

[Icarus]

Keep in mind that the capitalism that Marx wrote about no longer exists. Marx did not know capitalism in its moderated form as it exists practically across the globe today. And while I have not read all of it, I suspect he would not write the same things today. Capitalism has evolved tremendously since the early days of exploitation.

Yes, he did. He studied capitalism for years on end, and the capitalism back then is not so different as it is now. Globalization is the only thing he missed, and economically, back then wasn't much different in that respect. Don't pretend exploitation has gone away, or even diminished. If anything, it's the worst it has been. Workers are being paid less than a dollar each day for the products we buy. Their rights aren't respected, and their lives are no more than used. George bush is fueling a war with billions and billions of dollars that seem to have no effect against underfunded insurgents. The money is not going where he's told us it's going. America has hidden it's gold reserve simply so it can raise the amount of money in america without causing inflation, hurting foreign economies in the long term, as well as the poor within it's own. There are vast accounts of exploitation that no one even knows about. Don't try to predict what karl marx would write about today.

What you describe here is an aspect of capitalism that is moderated in every modern capitalistic country.

Moderated? it's moderated to please. It's not moderated to be moral, or just, or even keep the money balanced. The hard-working man isn't "successful", he's satisfied. He's sustained. Moderation has existed since the forming of capitalism. As soon as the system was implemented, the monopolies and exploitation that insued pretty forced governments to place sanctions on it. Again, your ignorance is showing.

The rich do not steal their money from the poor and put it in mattresses. They invest it, creating jobs, and thereby opportunities for those not yet rich.

yes of course that's why all their tax cuts have to be compensated by everyone else, as well as their hording, and political lobbying. Giving to charities and funding social programs are deductibles for the rich. They do those things so they pay less taxes. If they really wanted to help the unfortunate, they would trade all their extravagant luxuries to feed and house and sustain many many people. But they don't. Thus, is capitalism.

very significant aspects of human nature, i.e. the competitive instinct, pride in achievement, selfishness etc.

Do you think that's why every low paying job are the ones that benefit society the most? do you think hunters and gatherers would hide little bits of food here and there for themselves? those aren't aspects of human natured. Those are traits imbedded in the weak-minded due to the capitalist fuelings of conformism and greed, because at all, that is what it promotes.

I suggest you reflect on your selfish ideologies and realize you are addicted to all the luxuries that capitalism hands to you for chump change, while those who worked for all those luxuries aren't given enough to sustain themselves, and then the government places the highest taxes on them.

Capitalism allows the powerful to choose who's powerful, and then choose to obligate the appointed powerful to kiss their ass.

The invention of automobiles and computers had nothing to do with exploitation. Scienctific thought had nothing to do with exploitation. The good willed openly opposed this exploitation. The honest fight the exploitation. But because those who live in the well off countries are well off, and condone these kind of activities, the exploitation will always win.

People need to grow up and take responsibility.

EDIT: please back up all of these statements

what you pay for your goods, your insurance, and your education is up to those who hold the recourses. Due to capitalist mechanics, the ones who hold the recourses, the ones who grow the food, the ones who teach, have to organize themselves under a larger organization or corporation. These corporations buy their products, sell them to you, then pay the laborers. They have always been the richest of the three interacting parties. Wal-Mart has always been richer than it's customers, and has always been richer than it's manufacturers. Otherwise, you would be sold the products directly. This middleman doesn't charge for an honest price, and create's profit margin, charging more than it should. Thus, you are cheated of money.

If you work, you give the means of such organizations to manipulate the economy, giving them more arbitrary control over prices, keeping their workforce larger than it's "competitors" (aka meat), and aiding to the competition's bankruptcy, which is always inevitable within the same market unless the government steps in.

Your assertions are absolutely empty without supporting evidence. Naming a book is not a sufficient defense of your assertion. Further, it would be polite of you to address my arguments with more than a questionable appeal to authority.

Oh, excuse me for presenting counter arguments that actually take into account the mechanics of capitalism. Read the entire post, not that one paragraph.

[Oblongato]

Yes, he did. He studied capitalism for years on end, and the capitalism back then is not so different as it is now. Globalization is the only thing he missed, and economically, back then wasn't much different in that respect. Don't pretend exploitation has gone away, or even diminished. If anything, it's the worst it has been. Workers are being paid less than a dollar each day for the products we buy. Their rights aren't respected, and their lives are no more than used. George bush is fueling a war with billions and billions of dollars that seem to have no effect against underfunded insurgents. The money is not going where he's told us it's going. America has hidden it's gold reserve simply so it can raise the amount of money in america without causing inflation, hurting foreign economies in the long term, as well as the poor within it's own. There are vast accounts of exploitation that no one even knows about. Don't try to predict what karl marx would write about today.

Capitalism is radically different today. Examples: working hours, health insurance (to some extent), job safety, unions, etc. etc.

In developing countries conditions gradually improve, wages improve, conditions improve. Example: computer industry in China, Malaysia, India, etc. Manufacturing in general. As workers become more skilled, quality improves, wages rise and conditions improve.

Again, the workers choose to work there. Because it is better than not.

That you would even suggest that Marx would write the same things today strikes me as very odd. The world has changed radically, and so has capitalism. Again, Marx did not write about the same capitalism, in my view.



Moderated? it's moderated to please. It's not moderated to be moral, or just, or even keep the money balanced. The hard-working man isn't "successful", he's satisfied. He's sustained. Moderation has existed since the forming of capitalism. As soon as the system was implemented, the monopolies and exploitation that insued pretty forced governments to place sanctions on it.

It's moderated so that it is allowed to exist in democratic countries where workers are allowed to vote. Don't forget the unions. When things get bad enough, the unions will also make a comeback in companies where they are now weak or non-existent. In my view, moderated capitalism is a pretty good system.

Again, your ignorance is showing.

I won't comment here except to label this a desperate and empty insult that doesn't belong on this board (and is forbidden by the rules).


yes of course that's why all their tax cuts have to be compensated by everyone else, as well as their hording, and political lobbying. Giving to charities and funding social programs are deductibles for the rich. They do those things so they pay less taxes. If they really wanted to help the unfortunate, they would trade all their extravagant luxuries to feed and house and sustain many many people. But they don't. Thus, is capitalism.

Explain why Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are giving most of their fortunes to charity then. The argument definitely does not hold in this case.

Feeding, clothing and housing people is good. But is has to be sustainable. It would better if the rich founded more companies thereby giving people a long-term means to feed, clothe and house themselves. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is all about sustainability.

Do you think that's why every low paying job are the ones that benefit society the most? do you think hunters and gatherers would hide little bits of food here and there for themselves? those aren't aspects of human natured. Those are traits imbedded in the weak-minded due to the capitalist fuelings of conformism and greed, because at all, that is what it promotes.

This is your opinion. I consider selfishness human nature. Therefore, a system that is able to harness selfishness so that it also serves the common good is the ideal system. I consider moderated capitalism to be such a system.

I suggest you reflect on your selfish ideologies and realize you are addicted to all the luxuries that capitalism hands to you for chump change, while those who worked for all those luxuries aren't given enough to sustain themselves, and then the government places the highest taxes on them.

Capitalism allows the powerful to choose who's powerful, and then choose to obligate the appointed powerful to kiss their ass.

The invention of automobiles and computers had nothing to do with exploitation. Scienctific thought had nothing to do with exploitation. The good willed openly opposed this exploitation. The honest fight the exploitation. But because those who live in the well off countries are well off, and condone these kind of activities, the exploitation will always win.

People need to grow up and take responsibility.

I know you mean selfish as an insult, but I don't take it as one. Nowhere have I said that even moderated capitalism is a perfect system. Yet I would argue that it is the best system yet tried. It is certainly the most successful. And more people are better off today, i.e. live longer, healthier lives, have access to more information, have more democracy, more human rights etc. than at any point in history. Thanks to capitalism. There is exploitation, but it is mitigated by the overwhelming benefits, and exploitation tends to diminish over time.

[Oblongato]

EDIT:

what you pay for your goods, your insurance, and your education is up to those who hold the recourses. Due to capitalist mechanics, the ones who hold the recourses, the ones who grow the food, the ones who teach, have to organize themselves under a larger organization or corporation. These corporations buy their products, sell them to you, then pay the laborers. They have always been the richest of the three interacting parties. Wal-Mart has always been richer than it's customers, and has always been richer than it's manufacturers. Otherwise, you would be sold the products directly. This middleman doesn't charge for an honest price, and create's profit margin, charging more than it should. Thus, you are cheated of money.

This ignores the principle of competition. Others are free to offer their products at a lower price. If they do, I can buy those products. Capitalism provides the incentive to find ways to offer the products more cheaply. There is no such thing as an honest price, only the market price. Competition ensures that it remains relatively low.

The logistics of direct sales are far too complicated for the number of products people want to buy. Therefore a middle man is necessary.

And with the availability of information, all of this is relatively transparent. I don't believe I am being cheated. If I did, I would buy elsewhere.


If you work, you give the means of such organizations to manipulate the economy, giving them more arbitrary control over prices, keeping their workforce larger than it's "competitors" (aka meat), and aiding to the competition's bankruptcy, which is always inevitable within the same market unless the government steps in.

If the situation is out of hand, the government will step in. I don't follow your mention of "meat". It sounds as if you are talking about the formation of monopolies. If so, that is indeed one of the challenges of moderated capitalism.


Oh, excuse me for presenting counter arguments that actually take into account the mechanics of capitalism. Read the entire post, not that one paragraph.

But I was referring only to that paragraph. And please try to tone down the insults.

It's odd, in other threads I agree with many of the things you've written, but here it's getting pretty nasty.

[Prozerran]

I don't know all of the terminology here, so please read objectively and with an open mind to what I'm trying to say.

When we think of the "good" in capitalism, we think of opportunity, of freedom to make your own destiny, and more importantly, of success. By being in charge of one's own destiny, mankind finds a purpose. But therein lies the fallacious reason why the capitalist system, in and of itself, is the best system, because no other exists like it in the world the way it does in America. We fall into this trap that it is the best system and we should continue to prolong it for as long as possible without ever pondering the likelihood that it is an inferior system, that we can do better.

We are content to ride it out, through its ups and downs, as we enable people in positions of authority to tell us it's the best system because our only other options are communism, socialism, marxism, etc. We can do better.

Our society isn't a group of lazy workers, we're a group of lazy thinkers. And that's the bottom line. We aren't educated to ponder our lives, to enable ourselves to find what gives us value to our lives. Instead, we are bombarded in the media with ads telling us that this product or this service will lead you down that road to a happier life. How? We are told to get an education so we can be productive in the workforce. Why? We are told that the reward for our productivity is relative. It's not. Capitalism encourages us, no, demands of us, that we go out and get a job, work hard, and reap the rewards. What if I don't want to be rich? What if I don't care about money? What if I don't define success in my life by how much I can buy and how much free time I have? These questions are absurd in our society. They're flat out ridiculous. Why should they be?

If you've ever been asked the question, "If you had a million dollars, what would you do for a living?" you know that whatever you choose would be your ideal career. But this question is bullshit, because if everyone had a million dollars, we wouldn't have a janitor to clean up our shit. What's more absurd is that people wouldn't actually do anything more than travel the world, buy a yacht, sit outside all day by their pool, or buy that really expensive sports car they've dreamed of owning since they were a teenager. Why? Because they're lazy? No. The answer is far more complex.

First, like I've stated already, people are not educated in a way that enables them to find purpose or meaning in which they can value their lives. They are trained, not educated, to become productive members of our society so they can work all their lives in a job that they may or may not like. The higher it pays, the better the job, so the more likely a person is to take a job they hate for the monetary "prize". Second, this value is supplemented with all the "luxuries" of a free market society. This means that the dollars you earn should be spent on putting money back into other people's pockets so that you can be happy. That's advertising, and you cannot go anywhere without having this shoved down your throat. And finally, it's this false promise of hope. Our society makes the claim that if you work hard you will reap the rewards. What rewards? Are any of us truly free of the burden of making money? Even when we have all the money we could ever want, it's finite. As in, you must invest your money so that over time it will generate more money for you to either use to buy goods or reinvest for, guess what, more money. But the fucked up thing is this... no matter how much money you earn in your life time, it's very unlikely it will ever be enough for you to be truly free. You'll always worry about it. If you're poor, you'll wish for more money. If you're rich, you'll worry about losing all your money. Either way, you'll never learn from any system of our society how to discover the way to live a happier life for yourself.

Instead, we'll just leave that all up to Capitalism, because that's what we're educated to believe is the way to a happier life.

[Oblongato]

I don't know all of the terminology here, so please read objectively and with an open mind to what I'm trying to say.

When we think of the "good" in capitalism, we think of opportunity, of freedom to make your own destiny, and more importantly, of success. By being in charge of one's own destiny, mankind finds a purpose. But therein lies the fallacious reason why the capitalist system, in and of itself, is the best system, because no other exists like it in the world the way it does in America. We fall into this trap that it is the best system and we should continue to prolong it for as long as possible without ever pondering the likelihood that it is an inferior system, that we can do better.

We are content to ride it out, through its ups and downs, as we enable people in positions of authority to tell us it's the best system because our only other options are communism, socialism, marxism, etc. We can do better.

The best thing about capitalism is that it doesn't impose a purpose - it leaves each individual free to choose his purpose. It insists that each individual take care of himself, basically, but we are always free to choose our goals, and, of course, our purpose.

Our society isn't a group of lazy workers, we're a group of lazy thinkers. And that's the bottom line. We aren't educated to ponder our lives, to enable ourselves to find what gives us value to our lives. Instead, we are bombarded in the media with ads telling us that this product or this service will lead you down that road to a happier life. How? We are told to get an education so we can be productive in the workforce. Why? We are told that the reward for our productivity is relative. It's not. Capitalism encourages us, no, demands of us, that we go out and get a job, work hard, and reap the rewards. What if I don't want to be rich? What if I don't care about money? What if I don't define success in my life by how much I can buy and how much free time I have? These questions are absurd in our society. They're flat out ridiculous. Why should they be?

There's nothing about capitalism that makes us lazy thinkers. We are free to think all we want. Yes, we do have to carry our own weight, but if we are doing that, any additional work or success is completely up to us. There are plenty of professions that are not typical "rat-race" professions. Teaching, research, flower arranging etc. Satisfying and low paying. But you can live from it.


If you've ever been asked the question, "If you had a million dollars, what would you do for a living?" you know that whatever you choose would be your ideal career. But this question is bullshit, because if everyone had a million dollars, we wouldn't have a janitor to clean up our shit. What's more absurd is that people would actually do anything more than travel the world, buy a yacht, sit outside all day by their pool, or buy that really expensive sports car they've dreamed of owning since they were a teenager. Why? Because they're lazy? No. The answer is far more complex.

Well, the question is hypothetical, which is not the same as bullshit. Obviously, if everyone had a million dollars someone would still have to clean up our shit. The work would still need to be done, the products would still need to be manufactured and sold.

Living has its own meaning for each individual. And any time an individual achieves a goal, a new goal has to be defined or that individual can really just drift through life. (Although the drifting could have meaning for that individual, too.) If you give money meaning and make it your goal to earn a mil, you will need new meaning and a new goal when you get that million.



First, like I've stated already, people are not educated in a way that enables them to find purpose or meaning in which they can value their lives. They are trained, not educated, to become productive members of our society so they can work all their lives in a job that they may or may not like. The higher it pays, the better the job, so the more likely a person is to take a job they hate for the monetary "prize". Second, this value is supplemented with all the "luxuries" of a free market society. This means that the dollars you earn should be spent on putting money back into other people's pockets so that you can be happy. That's advertising, and you cannot go anywhere without having this shoved down your throat. And finally, it's this false promise of hope. Our society makes the claim that if you work hard you will reap the rewards. What rewards? Are any of us truly free of the burden of making money? Even when we have all the money we could ever want, it's finite. As in, you must invest your money so that over time it will generate more money for you to either use to buy goods or reinvest for, guess what, more money. But the fucked up thing is this... no matter how much money you earn in your life time, it's very unlikely it will ever be enough for you to be truly free. You'll always worry about it. If you're poor, you'll wish for more money. If you're rich, you'll worry about losing all your money. Either way, you'll never learn from any system of our society how to discover the way to live a happier life for yourself.

Instead, we'll just leave that all up to Capitalism, because that's what we're educated to believe is the way to a happier life.

I agree that people are not educated in the art of philosophizing, and many seem to remain shallow throughout their lives, but that is also an aspect of freedom. No one is compelled to adopt a particular ideology, and while many are obsessed with financial success, many others are not. Most Americans I know are pretty fulfilled, though you always read about the empty ones, too. In any case, capitalism shouldn't be, and I don't think is, taken as a source of meaning in itself. Capitalism is just a system within which one is free to make most of one's own decisions.

[Prozerran]

I agree that people are not educated in the art of philosophizing, and many seem to remain shallow throughout their lives, but that is also an aspect of freedom.

No, that is not an aspect of freedom. It is a result of the way which we are educated. It's not as though one has an opportunity in a publicly funded institution to learn to think for oneself. You have to pay for it, believe it or not.

No one is compelled to adopt a particular ideology, and while many are obsessed with financial success, many others are not. Most Americans I know are pretty fulfilled, though you always read about the empty ones, too.

How many people do you know who live from paycheck to paycheck who are "pretty fulfilled"? Perhaps you are referring to those people you know who are able to afford just about anything they need? It's not like I'm pulling this shit out of my ass.

In any case, capitalism shouldn't be, and I don't think is, taken as a source of meaning in itself. Capitalism is just a system within which one is free to make most of one's own decisions.

Bullshit. Is this a fucking Political Science textbook or a discussion forum? Please...

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your response. This was the most blatantly ignorant of material from it...

[Icarus]

BTW, I apologize, it's not really oblongato, i'm just pulling my fruckin hair out over the people in the global warming thread.

This ignores the principle of competition. Others are free to offer their products at a lower price. If they do, I can buy those products. Capitalism provides the incentive to find ways to offer the products more cheaply. There is no such thing as an honest price, only the market price. Competition ensures that it remains relatively low.

There's a reason that Mcdonalds is the burger place with 4-5 times more ads than other burger place. There's also a reason that KFC, Home Depot, and starbucks are similar within their industries. They are the overwhelming leading corporations. No one makes meat or makes as much money from meat as KFC does. No other hardware store is as successful as Home Depot. And most definately no coffee shop is as successful as starbucks. These aren't monopolies, in definition, but they may as well be such. They're power in their industries is simply ridiculous. Even if Joe's coffee shop sells a cup of coffee at 1.50, and starbucks sells theirs at 2.50, more people know and trust starbucks, and more people will go to starbucks for coffee. The long-term effects of competition only ensure that the leaders within a market will stay at the top, unless something catastrophic happens (Iraq war, hurricane, stock market crash, etc.). Any corporation that is situated as the leader will quickly pay for means of a vertical monopoly. McDonalds makes its own food.

The logistics of direct sales are far too complicated for the number of products people want to buy. Therefore a middle man is necessary.

Actually, it's because no single producer has the economic means to reach a wide enough market.

And with the availability of information, all of this is relatively transparent. I don't believe I am being cheated. If I did, I would buy elsewhere.

Whether you believe it, or even notice it, is irrelevant. You are, as long as you live in a capitalist society.

Well, the question is hypothetical, which is not the same as bullshit. Obviously, if everyone had a million dollars someone would still have to clean up our shit. The work would still need to be done, the products would still need to be manufactured and sold.

Actually, they'd most likely just hire illegal mexicans or destitute chinese to do all that for them. Once you have lots of money, most people in capitalist society do their best to avoid real work.


Living has its own meaning for each individual. And any time an individual achieves a goal, a new goal has to be defined or that individual can really just drift through life. (Although the drifting could have meaning for that individual, too.) If you give money meaning and make it your goal to earn a mil, you will need new meaning and a new goal when you get that million.

What people do with money isn't important. But their outlook on why and how they earn it is. In an honest (marxist) mindset, your goal with that "mil" will most likely be something the government would be better at doing, so you leave that to the government, and make what is necessary to sustain. Any social or political change you want can be made via your vote.

/quote]It insists that each individual take care of himself[/quote]

At the moral and financial cost of others.

Capitalism is radically different today. Examples: working hours, health insurance (to some extent), job safety, unions, etc. etc.

In developing countries conditions gradually improve, wages improve, conditions improve. Example: computer industry in China, Malaysia, India, etc. Manufacturing in general. As workers become more skilled, quality improves, wages rise and conditions improve.

Again, the workers choose to work there. Because it is better than not.

That you would even suggest that Marx would write the same things today strikes me as very odd. The world has changed radically, and so has capitalism. Again, Marx did not write about the same capitalism, in my view.

Capitalism isn't different at all. You know, labor unions actually arose as a response to the communist manifesto. Marx was the very catalyst for them.

Working hours is entirely dependent on your occupation.

Health care? health care is better? because of capitalism? I could talk about healthcare but i would end up ranting. For a condensed version, see michael moore's upcoming film SiCKO. Healthcare, as well as all types of insurance, are universal and socialized within about every version of communism.

Again, occupational hazards are dependent on your occupation. If you work in a coal mine under capitalism, or a coal mine under communism, the level of danger does not change.

How about the dozens of capitalist african countries? Conditions improve if you live favorable capitalist conditions, as well as a capitalist (imperialist) mindset. It's not like "where there is capitalism, there are good conditions".

Wages have risen because of the child's play that many nations (USA included) have made of international economy. The prices are rising, as well as the wages, as well as the dollar. It's simply that more money is being generated than can be backed up.

The reasons that the countries you named are growing industrial wise, are:

A. Recovery from the historical rape they've endured by their leaders

B. Either extremely high, or extremely high growth rate of population.

China's population has given it a crazy industry base. Their export amount is HUGE, but their export revenue is small, because they are just beginning to rise up, so they charge less.

anyways, ill finish this post by saying sure, capitalism is hella good financially for the few and powerful. But is it moral? no. Is it good financially for the masses? no. Is it contradictory? yes. Is it imperialistic? yes, in fact it just about forces you to be.

marxist-type societies can't be created without honest, good-willed people. We simply have to make that step of halting the bad influences modern society implies upon people, starting at a young age.

[Oblongato]

No, that is not an aspect of freedom. It is a result of the way which we are educated. It's not as though one has an opportunity in a publicly funded institution to learn to think for oneself. You have to pay for it, believe it or not.

In my view anyone with access to a library has the opportunity to learn if he wants to. We can't expect to have thinking skills spoon fed to us. There is also an aspect of "get off your butt and do it yourself" to be considered. You're right that there is no emphasis placed on thinking, but we are still free to think.

How many people do you know who live from paycheck to paycheck who are "pretty fulfilled"? Perhaps you are referring to those people you know who are able to afford just about anything they need? It's not like I'm pulling this shit out of my ass.

Give me a break, I was one of those people. And many of my friends were or are too. It's not forbidden to enjoy life just because you're getting minimum wage.


Bullshit. Is this a fucking Political Science textbook or a discussion forum? Please...

While your profanity and insults lend some credibility to your statement, I still fail to find an argument there.

Let me just say that because you live in a capitalist system you are not in prison. (Though in most western, capitalist countries even prisoners have access to libraries, and many make use of them.) The world can be a hard place, but people have far more choices and opportunities under capitalism than you seem willing to admit. Capitalism is not the straightjacket it was when Marx believed that the only way to end the exploitation of the worker was to end capitalism.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your response. This was the most blatantly ignorant of material from it...

Still, I will respond to this statement. It's completely without substance, it violates the rules of the forum and it makes me question your own ability to defend your arguments.

[Oblongato]

BTW, I apologize, it's not really oblongato, i'm just pulling my fruckin hair out over the people in the global warming thread.

Accepted :)


There's a reason that Mcdonalds is the burger place with 4-5 times more ads than other burger place. There's also a reason that KFC, Home Depot, and starbucks are similar within their industries. They are the overwhelming leading corporations. No one makes meat or makes as much money from meat as KFC does. No other hardware store is as successful as Home Depot. And most definately no coffee shop is as successful as starbucks. These aren't monopolies, in definition, but they may as well be such. They're power in their industries is simply ridiculous. Even if Joe's coffee shop sells a cup of coffee at 1.50, and starbucks sells theirs at 2.50, more people know and trust starbucks, and more people will go to starbucks for coffee. The long-term effects of competition only ensure that the leaders within a market will stay at the top, unless something catastrophic happens (Iraq war, hurricane, stock market crash, etc.). Any corporation that is situated as the leader will quickly pay for means of a vertical monopoly. McDonalds makes its own food.

Actually, it's because no single producer has the economic means to reach a wide enough market.

Yes, as I mentioned above, the tendency towards monopolies is one of the greatest challenges to a capitalist system. When powerful companies with monopolies or near monopolies also gain political power, through lobbyists or whatever, the situation becomes critical. Here I think the only answer is democratic rebellion against politicians who fail to act to preserve competition. Because without competition, capitalism will destroy itself.

I would argue that in the fast-food industry competition still exists, but the telecommunications industry in the U.S. has been consolidated to the extent that consumer prices are now considerably higher than in Europe. The situation used to be the reverse.

The danger is definitely there.

Whether you believe it, or even notice it, is irrelevant. You are, as long as you live in a capitalist society.

I think this is a matter of perspective. From your Marxist or Marxist-leaning perspective, true. But not from my perspective.


Actually, they'd most likely just hire illegal mexicans or destitute chinese to do all that for them. Once you have lots of money, most people in capitalist society do their best to avoid real work.

Yes, any company tries to get the work done for the best price. But people who work use the money earned to improve their circumstances. Their skills improve, their efficiency, and, ultimately, their living conditions. Everyone who takes a job does so because they are better off with it than without it.

I can't agree generally that those who have acquired lots of money then do their best to avoid work. Those I've had contact with whom one could call "rich" are generally workaholics. It seems the more they earn, the more they work. Personally, I don't consider it healthy, but it's their lives.

What people do with money isn't important. But their outlook on why and how they earn it is. In an honest (marxist) mindset, your goal with that "mil" will most likely be something the government would be better at doing, so you leave that to the government, and make what is necessary to sustain. Any social or political change you want can be made via your vote.

Here again, the idea of "sustaining" is for me problematic. I do not believe that you will find large numbers of people willing to accept "sustenance" as sufficient. Too many people want to compete, to climb, to achieve. How do these tendencies fit in with Marxist communism?



At the moral and financial cost of others.

Not necessarily. This is why insurance should be required.



Capitalism isn't different at all. You know, labor unions actually arose as a response to the communist manifesto. Marx was the very catalyst for them.

Working hours is entirely dependent on your occupation.

Health care? health care is better? because of capitalism? I could talk about healthcare but i would end up ranting. For a condensed version, see michael moore's upcoming film SiCKO. Healthcare, as well as all types of insurance, are universal and socialized within about every version of communism.

Again, occupational hazards are dependent on your occupation. If you work in a coal mine under capitalism, or a coal mine under communism, the level of danger does not change.

How about the dozens of capitalist african countries? Conditions improve if you live favorable capitalist conditions, as well as a capitalist (imperialist) mindset. It's not like "where there is capitalism, there are good conditions".

Wages have risen because of the child's play that many nations (USA included) have made of international economy. The prices are rising, as well as the wages, as well as the dollar. It's simply that more money is being generated than can be backed up.

The reasons that the countries you named are growing industrial wise, are:

A. Recovery from the historical rape they've endured by their leaders

B. Either extremely high, or extremely high growth rate of population.

China's population has given it a crazy industry base. Their export amount is HUGE, but their export revenue is small, because they are just beginning to rise up, so they charge less.

anyways, ill finish this post by saying sure, capitalism is hella good financially for the few and powerful. But is it moral? no. Is it good financially for the masses? no. Is it contradictory? yes. Is it imperialistic? yes, in fact it just about forces you to be.

marxist-type societies can't be created without honest, good-willed people. We simply have to make that step of halting the bad influences modern society implies upon people, starting at a young age.

Capitalism exists in a number of different variations in the world today. As you pointed out, it has been influenced by Marxism, by democracy, and by the culture of individual countries.

Your are certainly right that it's not all good. But its primary strength is in its productivity. It creates capital at a far faster rate than any other system. And it is this capital that allows rapid improvements in things like working conditions, environmental protection, and the rate of progress to be financed.

You are also correct that capitalism's benefits are not intentional or moral. They are rather a side effect of the massive productivity that accompanies capitalism. And yet the benefits do generally come at some point, even if they are not intentional. For me, it doesn't matter what the motivation behind the benefits is as long as benefits are generated.

I don't agree that capitalism is necessarily imperialism. If it were, the U.S. and other nations that engaged in imperialist behavior would have a far tighter grip on the countries to which capitalism has spread. In recent years there has been a strong tendency towards independence in ideology and behavior on the part of countries that were once economically tightly in the grip of the U.S. or other (formerly) imperialist countries. This independence is a direct result of the free market. When a country is free to offer its products to any country, competition is created that leaves countries free to defy their former exclusive economic partners (or as you might say, victims). My point: these countries are no longer victims of imperialism in that they can choose their partners.

For me the main advantage of capitalism is its unquestionably superior productivity. As a system it is neither moral nor immoral, but rather amoral. But productivity in itself has advantages.

For example: people need clothing. When more clothing is produced, more people have clothing who need it. When more houses are produced, more people who need houses get houses. When more tools for building are produced, more people who need tools to build get the tools to build and as a consequence build more and faster. The financial markets do not always follow exactly the production of capital, but there is always a relationship. Overall, capitalism, though amoral, produces the fastest growth of capital, and this capital does slowly work its way down to people who previously had nothing. China is a good example of the effects of capitalism. Early on, China produced low quality in volume. Now China produces high quality in volume at low prices, and soon China will be producing the highest quality at moderate prices. It is at this point that the wealth and living conditions of average Chinese will explode.

I see this as a direct result of capitalism and the desire of average Chinese to get ahead, to achieve, to live better. These may not be considered noble motivations by Marxists, but they are real and effective motivations.

For the Marxist society you describe, children must be indoctrinated into an ideology where moral truth is taught as gospel and should not be questioned. I believe that the Marxist concept of morality is not the only concept of morality. And in a world where citizens are free to challenge the morality of Marxism, Marxism cannot function as the dominant political system. I don't believe that it is possible to convince a majority of people that Marxist morality is the best concept of morality without major restrictions of freedoms that exist under a capitalist system.

What does Marxism actually say about freedom, of thought, of choice, of ideology?

[TheListener]

Just like to say that I'm delighted you guys have responded so actively to this thread. However, just wanted to steer it back on course considering it's evolved into a bit of a clash between Capitalism and Communism. What I'm trying to get at in this thread is a potential economic scheme (or lack of scheme as Daniel Quinn might suggest) would lead to humanity seeing a utopian and universally happy (potentially equal) society.


No one can make accurate predictions about a perfect society, simply because one has never existed, let alone one a large scale.


This is exactly what I was aiming at. One of the reasons why I brought up population control was the fact that I see utopia as unacheivable with a population of 10 billion. I've many times thought of smaller - cluster societies whose actions are based on subsistence and sustaining the population. But this seemed both improbable and an insult to the centuries of scientific advancement hamanity has seen.

It seens obvious that Numbers views communism as a utopian economic system while Oblogato may see some sort of more moderate offshoot of laisse faire as perfect for society. Albeit - the latter has been used with mild success whereas the former has some disreputable history (while I argue the same point as numbers - that it's a shameful coincidence that paranoid and megalomaniacal leaders have taken the reigns of the few communist regimes in history while communism has been downtrodden and never been given a proper chance).

I'm looking for a social/economic/political structure which could save humanity.

An elitist government making calculated and intelligent decisions for the masses (part of Bolshevism - the distinct difference from Menshevism). However, this would have to leave space for corruption and greed. They would have to be kind hearted and have distinct and honest goals. I don't see this as a veritable option considering the history of "Communism" (please don't hit me Numbers :"( )

What about self governing rule? Lay the powers in the hands of each human - hoping that their conscience and honesty will prevent theft, rape and kidnapping.

What is the answer?
It's up to Warboards IR Enthusiasts to save the world!

[Oblongato]

@ The Listener:

You're right about what I would consider the best form of government, a moderate form of capitalism, so I wouldn't really say the thread was that far off course.

I would add that I don't believe that a stable Utopia is possible - probably systems now existing in Europe and north America come reasonably close to what I would consider the best possible form of government. Of course there are deficits, but I think problems will always crop up in any system.

As I've mentioned before, I believe that new permutations of human behavior will always arise, as will new ideologies and new perspectives. This is why I think the best systems must be flexible enough to cope with constant change based on a logical analysis of the current situation. I believe that freedom of thought and expression are essential, and I believe that the system must be secular - and this should be established in a constitution. Obviously, if freedom of thought is to be encouraged, there can be no official state ideology. This would disqualify Marxism and any non-secular form of government.

While democracy has significant weaknesses, I think its strengths outweigh them. I do not think that any form of government that is imposed on the people can last, and democracy ensures that people have the government they choose.

The trick is to keep the masses educated. Education, specifically training on how to think, is the most essential component of a democratic system. This is one of the major flaws in the U.S. system; educational decisions are often heavily influenced on the local level by, for example, evolution opponents and other adherents to non-rational ideologies. Too many people are attached to ideas and ideologies that make no logical sense. These people are in my opinion unsuitable as voters under a democratic system. Voters should be taught not to adhere to a particular ideology but rather to analyze everything using logic. The people should be able to justify in detail their political views. Not simply with "reasons" such as "I just think it's time for a change." (I've heard this used as a justification more than once in real life!)

I do not think there will ever be a society without crime, violence, unhappiness and suffering. I think these things will always be caused by the permutations of human behavior mentioned above. And I think they are important to a society in order to maintain perspective. It must somehow always be apparent what happens when one chooses evil over good. Words alone are never sufficient as a teaching tool; people have to witness it. So I would suggest we will always have prisons. That said, I think crime, violence unhappiness and suffering can be minimized or channeled in such a way that they are less damaging (violent video games anyone?).

I don't think that humans can exist in perfect peace. Struggle has always been part of our existence and I think it will remain a part. The key is to harness struggle to achieve a positive outcome. Suffering is bad, but there are essential lessons to be learned from suffering. Therefore suffering must continue to be a part of human existence. If you disagree, find one person who has not learned valuable lessons from personal suffering.

It may not be Utopia, but my vision of a best possible form of government still contains light and dark.

[Prozerran]

While your profanity and insults lend some credibility to your statement, I still fail to find an argument there.

Let me just say that because you live in a capitalist system you are not in prison. (Though in most western, capitalist countries even prisoners have access to libraries, and many make use of them.) The world can be a hard place, but people have far more choices and opportunities under capitalism than you seem willing to admit. Capitalism is not the straightjacket it was when Marx believed that the only way to end the exploitation of the worker was to end capitalism.

Still, I will respond to this statement. It's completely without substance, it violates the rules of the forum and it makes me question your own ability to defend your arguments.

Look, man. What irritates me is how you've side-stepped my entire argument, then you tell me I haven't made an argument.

You vehemently defend capitalism like it is the greatest system, and you offer no original thought on the matter. It's like I'm debating with an economics textbook, only you don't cite any of your sources for any of your claims. I'm not asking you to, I'm merely stating that your position doesn't really seem to credibly be your own.

And I find it odd that when I offer my position on the issue, almost every person that decides to respond has something negative to say about my position, in effect, tossing it into a void of rejection without ever pondering the actual point I'm making.

My point is simple. We can do better than Capitalism, but we don't because we're content to be automatons, trained in schools that claim to educate, and forced to work when we're told we have freedom of choice but don't. The very "free-market" system capitalists claim to be the best form of economy is the very thing that undermines our ability to live a fulfilling life, because we are always going to be bound by the amount of money we have.

At every turn, when someone begins to question capitalism, someone is always there to tell you, "But if people aren't paid to do it, what incentive do people have to work? Society, as a whole, is lazy." It's the dumbest shit I've ever heard, because it just isn't true for the reasons I've already stated.

[Icarus]

Concerning social situations, marxism Is pretty much on par with the constitution. Once you delve deeply into it, marxism really is a religion. It's a way of life, and it only promotes social progress. It's only god is rational thought and the strive for the well-being of humanity as a whole. It's the only scientific religion, and it's the one I follow with every ounce of my being.

Oblongato made some very good points. Your idea of basing votes simply by analyzing the political issues and coming up with a solution based on logic is the best kind of voter you can have.

Now, we all realize the majority of people, not only in the U.S., but in the whole world living in democratic countries are not as honest with their vote as they should be. That is why I promote government changes from time to time. When the majority of the population isn't educated, you let the educated or the obviously intelligent people to legislate and lead. You centralize it, make it less like a democracy, and more of a republic. Luckily, I believe we've passed the point where a republic anywhere can be successful. Then, certain members of society are given the task of whittling away the ignorance within society until an actual democracy would be practical, and would flourish.

Whether a utopia can exist, and even if it can continue to exist after formation, is a mystery to me as well as anybody. I've concluded after a look at human history that it is more likely possible than not. Nevertheless, i personally will strive for it, and I will promote it so others can strive for it as well. No harm in doing our best to reach utopia.

That's marxist thinking. The fact that stalin violated millions of peoples' human rights was more a result of leninism, the dark side of communist ideas. Both ideologies are different, mind you.

Concerning the history of communism, I will say that a major problem with the pseudo experiments is that it got much too militarized too quickly. Decisions were enforced more by armed guards than republican legislation. Scandinavia had successfully began socialist experiments, and was doing pretty well. This is probably because they weren't a major political or economic player, and there military barely existed. But once more cultural influence by the americans had settled into them, through things like american products, and even TV, and once companies began searching for oil, they canceled the experiments.

Now for the economic stuff...



Yes, any company tries to get the work done for the best price. But people who work use the money earned to improve their circumstances. Their skills improve, their efficiency, and, ultimately, their living conditions. Everyone who takes a job does so because they are better off with it than without it.

Emphasis on THEIR. Their living conditions and their wages and their surroundings improves at the detriment of the people exploited.


Your are certainly right that it's not all good. But its primary strength is in its productivity. It creates capital at a far faster rate than any other system. And it is this capital that allows rapid improvements in things like working conditions, environmental protection, and the rate of progress to be financed.

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the financial gain made in a capitalist society is greater than a communist society (although that's yet to be tested). But the purpose of communism isn't to make the most money. It's to divide it evenly to everybody, so EVERYBODY has the same opportunities to use their skills for the betterment of society, while at the same time EVERYBODY has enough money to live a good, full life. It puts the money in the right hands. In a communism, there are only two economic groups: the people, and the government. Government always gets more money than a single person could dream of getting. With money comes power, and power shouldn't be given to opportunists.


I don't agree that capitalism is necessarily imperialism. If it were, the U.S. and other nations that engaged in imperialist behavior would have a far tighter grip on the countries to which capitalism has spread. In recent years there has been a strong tendency towards independence in ideology and behavior on the part of countries that were once economically tightly in the grip of the U.S. or other (formerly) imperialist countries. This independence is a direct result of the free market. When a country is free to offer its products to any country, competition is created that leaves countries free to defy their former exclusive economic partners (or as you might say, victims). My point: these countries are no longer victims of imperialism in that they can choose their partners.

concerning your second sentence, don't they have that tight grip? For example, it is apparent that we are largely dependent on the middle eastern countries for oil. But we buy the most of their oil. They are also dependent on us for buying their oil. Think China. Chinese industry isn't large enough to give jobs to everyone within it's population, so our companies go over their, transfer american jobs over to there(I forgot what economic term it was...), and china's untapped workforce is now exploited of billions of dollars each year.

In my country of origin, bolivia, I remember a few years back a scandal over a company that privatized (through lobbying legislation) every single natural water source. Even rainfall. If the people wanted water, they had to pay that company's price, whether it be from a well, from the sky, or even at the market. If they tried to "steal" the water, they would be jailed for years. This is the capitalist attitude. Make the most money, while being completely indifferent towards morality. Luckily, the government banned the company from bolivia, YEARS AFTER.

You're right that countries can choose their economic partners that are nations. Whether exxon mobil decides to go to uganda is independent of uganda's will. Private corporations are free to go where they please.

Marxism concerning freedom, is based on freedom with responsibility. If you prove yourself to be prudent, you will gain more power within whatever industry you are prudent in. If you aren't wise in your handling of power, less power will be given to you. The government decides this.

The only ideoliges that is impressed upon communist citizens is that of hard work, hard work for your fellow man, and science. Whether you choose to be religious, support stem cell research, play the bongos, or lose your virginity at 63 is entirely up to you.

EDIT: @prozerran, I agree with what you say entirely, but i'm not sure if you're suggesting the dissolving of money, or if it's just that capitalism is horrible

[Oblongato]

Look, man. What irritates me is how you've side-stepped my entire argument, then you tell me I haven't made an argument.

How have I sidestepped your argument? Go back and look at my posts. I responded to all or most of your points. My statement that you hadn't made an argument referred to your one sentence. ("Bullshit. Is this a fucking Political Science textbook or a discussion forum? Please...") And I believe you were the one who dismissed the bulk of my points as too "blatantly ignorant". Tell me again why I should take you seriously?

You vehemently defend capitalism like it is the greatest system, and you offer no original thought on the matter. It's like I'm debating with an economics textbook, only you don't cite any of your sources for any of your claims. I'm not asking you to, I'm merely stating that your position doesn't really seem to credibly be your own.

Those are all my ideas, even if parts of them are taken from things I've read and experienced over the years. I can't guarantee that they aren't similar to others' ideas because I haven't read anyone else's ideas lately. Give me a specific criticism and I will give you a defense, also completely based on my own ideas.

And I find it odd that when I offer my position on the issue, almost every person that decides to respond has something negative to say about my position, in effect, tossing it into a void of rejection without ever pondering the actual point I'm making.

I can't see how you could get that idea from my posts. I disagree on many points, yes, but I think I did address them.

My point is simple. We can do better than Capitalism, but we don't because we're content to be automatons, trained in schools that claim to educate, and forced to work when we're told we have freedom of choice but don't. The very "free-market" system capitalists claim to be the best form of economy is the very thing that undermines our ability to live a fulfilling life, because we are always going to be bound by the amount of money we have.

At every turn, when someone begins to question capitalism, someone is always there to tell you, "But if people aren't paid to do it, what incentive do people have to work? Society, as a whole, is lazy." It's the dumbest shit I've ever heard, because it just isn't true for the reasons I've already stated.

I've addressed your points in these two paragraphs before. To recap:

I don't agree that schools train people to be automatons; as I said, access to libraries means you have the means at your disposal to become a free thinker.

I don't agree that we have no freedom of choice; if you don't like your job, quit and get another. Learn a new skill. No one is stopping you. You also decide how much money to earn, how hard to work etc.

In developing countries where companies go for cheap labor, opportunities for workers are limited, at least in the beginning. Nevertheless, they are not forced to work there, they choose to because they have advantages from it.

There are people who may work although it is not for personal gain. But most people do indeed work only for personal gain. There's a strong argument for the idea that everything we do is selfish, even if it on the surface may not appear that way. Example: we give a gift because it makes *us* feel good.

People might also be more favorably disposed towards your points if you were less insulting.

[Prozerran]

Read this post (http://www.warboards.org/showthread.php?t=28075). The abbreviated argument just isn't clear enough for you. If you still feel I'm completely off the mark, you can PM me. I believe I have a strong case for what I'm saying, otherwise I wouldn't make the claims I make.

And I'm sorry if my irritation offends you. I didn't address most of your points because most of your responses didn't really answer anything I proposed. If you argued that apples were good for your teeth and I responded by arguing you should go fly a kite for better health, that would pretty much summarize the audacity of your post as it appeared to me. So, go read my argument in its full version. Then tell me if you're still convinced I'm completely off the mark.

[Oblongato]

Concerning social situations, marxism Is pretty much on par with the constitution. Once you delve deeply into it, marxism really is a religion. It's a way of life, and it only promotes social progress. It's only god is rational thought and the strive for the well-being of humanity as a whole. It's the only scientific religion, and it's the one I follow with every ounce of my being.

Oblongato made some very good points. Your idea of basing votes simply by analyzing the political issues and coming up with a solution based on logic is the best kind of voter you can have.

Hm. I'm not sure I can imagine the existence of a scientific religion - for me that's an oxymoron. (But I think I understand how you meant it.)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do see dogma and fixed ideology as being parts of Marxism. And I see these aspects as being in conflict with truly free thought and free politics. Free thought and a free, democratic system are essential aspects of what I consider to be the best bet for a fair, just and pragmatic government.

Now, we all realize the majority of people, not only in the U.S., but in the whole world living in democratic countries are not as honest with their vote as they should be. That is why I promote government changes from time to time. When the majority of the population isn't educated, you let the educated or the obviously intelligent people to legislate and lead. You centralize it, make it less like a democracy, and more of a republic. Luckily, I believe we've passed the point where a republic anywhere can be successful. Then, certain members of society are given the task of whittling away the ignorance within society until an actual democracy would be practical, and would flourish.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "not honest with their vote". Do you mean not rational? Not free of bias and attachment to ideology? And by government change, do you mean a totally new system of government or just what happens in Italy every few months? For stability's sake, I don't think that a total system change is a good idea. The overall system should be flexible enough to accommodate change.

I also think that no populace will ever be well enough educated that even the man on the street is capable of governing. In this respect, I think a democratic republic is the only form that can really function. Something has gone horribly wrong in the U.S. that people would vote for someone they perceive to be "just like them", i.e. George W. Bush. While Bush may not be the retard many make him out to be, he certainly is not a member of the intellectual elite. The citizenry should learn to appreciate those who are the best, i.e. appreciate the elite, and a smart citizen will vote to give the best of the elite the power to make decisions on his behalf. But the system should be crafted in such a way that members of the elite can rise from the ranks of the normal citizenry.


Whether a utopia can exist, and even if it can continue to exist after formation, is a mystery to me as well as anybody. I've concluded after a look at human history that it is more likely possible than not. Nevertheless, i personally will strive for it, and I will promote it so others can strive for it as well. No harm in doing our best to reach utopia.

I agree that we should strive for the best system, but I don't think that we will be able to move in the direction of a better system if our expectations assume the absence of things that have always been a part of human behavior. This means that a better system should take into account that humans will continue to be selfish and to do many of the bad things they have always done. If we can reduce or redirect some of these things, that's good. But to hope for their eradication I would consider to be unrealistic.

That's marxist thinking. The fact that stalin violated millions of peoples' human rights was more a result of leninism, the dark side of communist ideas. Both ideologies are different, mind you.

Concerning the history of communism, I will say that a major problem with the pseudo experiments is that it got much too militarized too quickly. Decisions were enforced more by armed guards than republican legislation. Scandinavia had successfully began socialist experiments, and was doing pretty well. This is probably because they weren't a major political or economic player, and there military barely existed. But once more cultural influence by the americans had settled into them, through things like american products, and even TV, and once companies began searching for oil, they canceled the experiments.

I believe that one of the drawbacks of systems that are moving in the direction of socialism / communism / Marxism is that they lose a great deal of momentum when exposed to free capitalism, both in terms of the competitive disadvantage economically and also ideologically as citizens decide in favor of materialism (which they cannot be allowed to do under such a system). A free system will not forbid materialism. In the face of globalization and the information age, the isolation necessary for a socialist experiment is probably not possible.



Now for the economic stuff...


Emphasis on THEIR. Their living conditions and their wages and their surroundings improves at the detriment of the people exploited.

Actually, with "their" I was referring to the people hired by companies at low wages in developing countries.


Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the financial gain made in a capitalist society is greater than a communist society (although that's yet to be tested). But the purpose of communism isn't to make the most money. It's to divide it evenly to everybody, so EVERYBODY has the same opportunities to use their skills for the betterment of society, while at the same time EVERYBODY has enough money to live a good, full life. It puts the money in the right hands. In a communism, there are only two economic groups: the people, and the government. Government always gets more money than a single person could dream of getting. With money comes power, and power shouldn't be given to opportunists.

Equal distribution of wealth is a concept I believe many people will not accept. I wouldn't and I know few people who would. I think most people want the freedom to achieve more or less as they see fit.

And the situation of people who do less getting paid the same as those who do more is intolerable for most.

In Germany, for example, German Telekom, formerly a government monopoly but now a private company, still has many civil servants working there. The civil servants are by contract not required to learn anything new or do any job but the one they were hired to do. Many of these jobs in effect no longer exist, but the civil servants can't be fired. The result: nearly all of the work is done by low-paid new employees while the civil servants sit around and give orders, if their level of understanding allows it. Morale is low for the low-paid employees, to say the least.

concerning your second sentence, don't they have that tight grip? For example, it is apparent that we are largely dependent on the middle eastern countries for oil. But we buy the most of their oil. They are also dependent on us for buying their oil. Think China. Chinese industry isn't large enough to give jobs to everyone within it's population, so our companies go over their, transfer american jobs over to there(I forgot what economic term it was...), and china's untapped workforce is now exploited of billions of dollars each year.

The U.S. grip, i.e. influence, on its economic partners is steadily lessening. Now strong-arm tactics are much less effective, because there are alternatives. And many countries are choosing the alternatives. South American and African countries are now choosing to cooperate primarily with China instead of the U.S. If the U.S. wants to maintain economic ties, it must now make much fairer deals than it did in the past.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean with the transfer of U.S. jobs to China and China's untapped workforce being exploited in connection with oil imports.

As far as I know, China's oil consumption is rising dramatically, and China is now competing with the U.S. for oil, the cause of increased oil prices.


In my country of origin, bolivia, I remember a few years back a scandal over a company that privatized (through lobbying legislation) every single natural water source. Even rainfall. If the people wanted water, they had to pay that company's price, whether it be from a well, from the sky, or even at the market. If they tried to "steal" the water, they would be jailed for years. This is the capitalist attitude. Make the most money, while being completely indifferent towards morality. Luckily, the government banned the company from bolivia, YEARS AFTER.

You are correct that that was a scandal. This is the result of bad governance. Government must make sure that no company gains a choke hold on products essential to life. This to me is an example of uncontrolled capitalism, which in my view is the form of capitalism Marx wanted to eradicate.

You're right that countries can choose their economic partners that are nations. Whether exxon mobil decides to go to uganda is independent of uganda's will. Private corporations are free to go where they please.

Nevertheless, private corporations must be welcome. In badly governed countries this normally involves some form of corruption. But the people hired to work there are nevertheless given the opportunity to improve their situation. (Not alway the case, see the Bhopal disaster.)

Marxism concerning freedom, is based on freedom with responsibility. If you prove yourself to be prudent, you will gain more power within whatever industry you are prudent in. If you aren't wise in your handling of power, less power will be given to you. The government decides this.

The only ideoliges that is impressed upon communist citizens is that of hard work, hard work for your fellow man, and science. Whether you choose to be religious, support stem cell research, play the bongos, or lose your virginity at 63 is entirely up to you.

Of course responsibility and science should be encouraged, but under a communist system would they be imposed?

For me freedom means also the freedom to decide not to work hard (of course with the economic disadvantages this entails), to work only for yourself, and to reject the principles of government if you so choose. Would a communist system allow this? What happens to renegades in a communist system? Could I march for capitalism under a communist system?

[Oblongato]

Read this post (http://www.warboards.org/showthread.php?t=28075). The abbreviated argument just isn't clear enough for you. If you still fee