Communism

[round_eyed_bugger]

How about a little debate on whether Communism is good or not? Personally, I'm pro-Communism. And please, don't just say "GO TO CHINA YOU COMMIE FUCKTARD". Trust me, that's stupid.

[dancer]

Can you list the differences if you were to live in a Communism society vs where you are living now ?

[Zzyzx]

Pure communism cannot exist, period. It's completely dependent on the good will of its human participants who are, by nature, flawed. What may start out with great intentions as some grand social experiment will always, inevitably, crumble under greed, jealousy, selfishness, and laziness.

Your turn. You can't say "I'm pro-communism" without a little reasoning. It's just not "fair".

[round_eyed_bugger]

Sorry i didnt elaborate last time.
I consider communism to be good because I see a certain humanity in it. What is good about communism is that it tries to place human life on a pedestal higher than "Survival of the Fittest".
Don't get me wrong, I'm no creationist. I just believe that with science, technology etc on our side, we can afford to give everyone a life. And about communism's failure being in the fact that it is based on human virtues, let me just say that I havent lost hope in humanity as of yet. But then, maybe you'll just call me young.
The difference between our present society and a true communist society would
be: No one would have to starve to death while another would buy his loved one gold. Basically, there would be no difference in wealth.
And while pure communism has never been fully successful on a large scale yet, I, myself, know many communes which function perfectly. And these are not village-scale communes, these are the size of a full-fledged city. Of course, while, you cannot equate this rather small-scale communism to a world communist empire, it's still a start.
Reply soon, people. I love to argue:) .

[Zzyzx]

It's certainly a nice feeling to believe that people are inherently good, and some really are, but practically everyone exhibits some degree of anti-social behavior. Fact is, people need a definite, tangible reason to get up in the morning and trudge off to work. The benefit of mankind alone just doesn't cut it. Money is a great motivator, and it truly makes the world go 'round. The more well-known "communist" countries found that a bullet and a whip make good motivators, too.

Why would a student choose to spend a good part of a decade studying for a medical doctorate or engineering degree when they'll end up with the same quality of life as, say, a janitor? Actually, why would anyone do anything? There's no threat of being fired or going hungry, only a nagging guilt that you're not carrying your weight. Guilt isn't a serious problem for a lot of people, unfortunately.

Do you have an example of these communist, city-sized societies?

Let's say you get a million friends together and start up a communist country tomorrow. Life will be great for a while; but I'd bet you a hundred bushels of my government-supplied grain that the initial enthusiasm of those first years will wear off and you'll catch yourself cursing your lazy neighbor (he works half as hard but gets the same!) and sleeping in on Monday.

Keep it coming....

[da holly shit]

Sorry i didnt elaborate last time.
I consider communism to be good because I see a certain humanity in it. What is good about communism is that it tries to place human life on a pedestal higher than "Survival of the Fittest".
Don't get me wrong, I'm no creationist. I just believe that with science, technology etc on our side, we can afford to give everyone a life. And about communism's failure being in the fact that it is based on human virtues, let me just say that I havent lost hope in humanity as of yet. But then, maybe you'll just call me young.
The difference between our present society and a true communist society would
be: No one would have to starve to death while another would buy his loved one gold. Basically, there would be no difference in wealth.
And while pure communism has never been fully successful on a large scale yet, I, myself, know many communes which function perfectly. And these are not village-scale communes, these are the size of a full-fledged city. Of course, while, you cannot equate this rather small-scale communism to a world communist empire, it's still a start.
Reply soon, people. I love to argue:) .
wat da fuc r u takin about ave u seen russia n china they dont n didnt funktion n it wasent very fair
:mad: :confused: :mad:

[freakazoid]

"Communist slut" ...My kind of t-shirt...

http://www.cafepress.com/shop/politics/browse/store/slutshirts.34331040

[freakazoid]

How about a little debate on whether Communism is good or not? Personally, I'm pro-Communism. And please, don't just say "GO TO CHINA YOU COMMIE FUCKTARD". Trust me, that's stupid.

Would never say that to ya, but would invite you to go work for Uncle Joe. :D COMMIE FUCKTARDS have rights too.


Your "revolution" is over, Mr. Lebowski! Condolences! The bums lost!

- The Big Lebowski

[round_eyed_bugger]

I guess this argument all boils down to whether humanity is good enough or not. I'll say we are that good, you'll say we're not. So I don't really think this can be resolved in forums or on paper. Because this debate will go on and on..
To answer your qestion, people will work not for materialistic glory, but for the good of their fellow humans. Now I know that sounds corny, unreal etc, but I know people who are noble enough to forsake a life of shielded wealth.
I live in India. There are quite a few communes peppered here and there, but the one that really stands out is called Timbaktu. It's a farmer's community in a state called Andhra Pradesh, if I'm not wrong.

To da_holly_shit : thank you, you just proved how shitty you are. First of all, try to write things that explain themselves. Fuck, i had to spend half an hour over your cryptic writing to figure out anything at all. Secondly, Russia failed. I agree with that. But that doesn't mean communism failed. That just means it wasn't implemented properly. The first few democracies in the world failed too (Democracy in a very primitive form was existent in as early as 600 BC). Using your logic, democracy is bad, right? Think before you write. Don't just type in whatever the Ronald Reagans of the world have said. By the way, I give you credit on your amazingly metaphorical and allusion-enduring name.
Oh, by the way, if you havent realized it already, the last line was sarcasm. Look it up i the dictionary.

[round_eyed_bugger]

Would never say that to ya, but would invite you to go work for Uncle Joe. :D COMMIE FUCKTARDS have rights too.


Your "revolution" is over, Mr. Lebowski! Condolences! The bums lost!

- The Big Lebowski

Very funny. Atleast you can spell. I appreciate articulate insults.:D

[Zzyzx]

I guess this argument all boils down to whether humanity is good enough or not. I'll say we are that good, you'll say we're not. So I don't really think this can be resolved in forums or on paper. Because this debate will go on and on..

So true. Let's just agree to disagree then, eh? I'm not all that emotionally attached to this iss- oh crap, hold on, yep, looks like I've used up my weekly internet allowance. I'd better get off before they catch me. Besides, it's time for someone else to use the communal computer, and these beet fields don't plow themselves. Adieu!

[Korono]

While a valid point, the central argument isn't the intrinsics of humankind, but rather the economic system that Communism presents. Assuming that no one takes advantage of this easily-manipulatable system, removing the seperation of a three tiered ecomonic class system does not leave room for economic growth. The only way for a Communist economy to grow would be if resources become infinite. This way all members of the society can grow together equally, since nothing is rationed. This is simply a variable that cannot be controlled. Also, if you wish to speak of the "fairness" of life, is it fair for a government official to be paid the same as a janitor, or a fire fighter to be paid the same as a baker? We should all be paid fairly for the services we provide, not simply because we are fellow humans. I think that to be given what you have not worked for is not fair, and for what you've earned to be taken away is just as unfair. Then again, it really isn't what's fair that's important, is it? It is simply opinion, but I felt that an alternate perspective would be something that you should ponder. What's important is that which is best for the people, and an economy that is doomed to fail is no way to serve the people. Surely, it is a good idea, but not a practical one.

[round_eyed_bugger]

While a valid point, the central argument isn't the intrinsics of humankind, but rather the economic system that Communism presents. Assuming that no one takes advantage of this easily-manipulatable system, removing the seperation of a three tiered ecomonic class system does not leave room for economic growth. The only way for a Communist economy to grow would be if resources become infinite. This way all members of the society can grow together equally, since nothing is rationed. This is simply a variable that cannot be controlled. Also, if you wish to speak of the "fairness" of life, is it fair for a government official to be paid the same as a janitor, or a fire fighter to be paid the same as a baker? We should all be paid fairly for the services we provide, not simply because we are fellow humans. I think that to be given what you have not worked for is not fair, and for what you've earned to be taken away is just as unfair. Then again, it really isn't what's fair that's important, is it? It is simply opinion, but I felt that an alternate perspective would be something that you should ponder. What's important is that which is best for the people, and an economy that is doomed to fail is no way to serve the people. Surely, it is a good idea, but not a practical one.

Economic Growth? Let me ask you, what's the basic reason why society was created in the first place? Society is supposed to be a co-operation between a group of individuals such that each member gets an equal share of the end-product. So, isn't capitalism against that very idea? Also, economic growth means nothing or very little in a capitalist economy. Sure, more industrial products are made, but how much of that goes to the working class?
As a capitalist economy grows, the divide between the upper and lower classes increase. That's a social phenomenon that never refuses to occur. And, thirdly, when you say communism is not a practical idea, you basically say communism is abnormal, that is, unnatural. However, if a study of tribal human society is done, you'll find that the social structure resembles socialism if not communism. Now I know communism and socialism are two different things, but they have quite a few ideological similarities. So, which is closer to nature, communism or capitalism? No need to answer that one. It is only our own social system that makes us perceive communism as unreal. Because we have a society in which competition is the norm, we blindly take that as the definition of a proper society. But as I said before, society is supposed to be co-operation, NOT competition. In a communist society, everyone works because he knows that if he does not work, the net income of the society will be less. Therefore, his own life will be worse-off.
Now, I can't really answer your "fairness" question. Because I perceive that as fair, and you don't. Both of us have valid points, but we cannot really convince ourselves whose perception is "better".
Whew, that was a long post. Reply do. It feels good to debate with someone who puts forward intelligent arguments.

[round_eyed_bugger]

I forget to mention this: India is growing economically at incredible rates. But farmers here still have to commit suicide because they cannot repay loans (due to late arrival of the rainy season etc).

[Korono]

Actually, there are many reasons why a society is formed, but I believe you do not understand what a society is. A society is an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization. In other words, If it has culture and an economy it is a society. Now, how do we define culture? A culture is based on the ability to classify abd understand experiences, and to be able to pass them on to the next generation with the purpose of maintaining some semblence of the "lifestyles" of the current society. None of that concerns being communal, simply coexisiting and interacting. The function of a society is not an issue in this argument, for all groups presided over by a government that is meant to preserve those people are classifiable cultures.

Now, the divide between high and low class, and the alienation of the middle class, is not a direct cause of capitalism, it is with the misuse of capitalism that we reach such a travesty. The purpose of true capitalism is the monetary and economic advancement of all who work hard enough. And the harder that each member of the society works, the more than economy grows, as the strength of the economy is directly connected to the financial status of all those functioning under the same system of capitalism. You cannot blame the tool for the user.

Also, impracticality refers to inapplicability, not abmormality. That argument does not enter into this debate for the same reason your first argument doesn't. You are simply confused on the terms. Now, since I still feel some desire to argue against these following inconsequential points, a tribal society can easily rely on socialism, or even a small community that is not a part of a larger system of government. Gaviotas is a perfect example of this. But once the state grows, so must the government evolve. It is simple to care for a small group, but of nameless faces that populate into the millions it is not a matter of communalism, but rather of support. And through the proper interperitation of capitalism we must all support each other by buying and selling to each other, and the more we do that the more the currency is worth.

I do believe I said that my idea of fairness was purely opinion.

And if you want to argue the corruption of capitalism, the same can be said of communism. In order for communism to take place in a country after the revolution a leader, or a council of leaders, must take charge of the government and guide it into communism. It requires a very long period of transition, similar to the authoritarian transition from a dictatorship to deomocracy. At the end of the transition the currenct leader(s) is supposed to step down and allow the society to function self-sustainingly. This leader might decide that they desire power, instead of communism. They maintain their strength within the government. Also, the unavoidable beaurocracy that froms from this state of transitiary government can be very corrupt, as plainly evidenced in the fallen Soviet Union. In the USSR, it was nearly impossible to own a car if you were not a beaurocrat, or without some connection to a beaurocrat. A citizen had to wait a year to recieve furniture that they purchased, while a beaurocrat is always at the head of the line.

[round_eyed_bugger]

That'll take a lot of time to reply to. You put up good points. I'm not wimping out, just give me some time. Exams coming up. My reply will be within 30 days.

[Korono]

I think before you reply you should do yourself a favor and educate yourself at least semi-formally on the subject. Read up on David Ricardo and Adam Smith, as well as the last 200 or so years of world economic history.

[freakazoid]

How about a little debate on whether Communism is good or not? Personally, I'm pro-Communism. And please, don't just say "GO TO CHINA YOU COMMIE FUCKTARD". Trust me, that's stupid.
OK, I will not just say "GO TO CHINA YOU COMMIE FUCKTARD"...but I will ask this one question that "Communists" have a BIG problem with...ready? OK, here it is...

Show me just ONE country in the entire history of so-called Communism that has produced the freedom, wealth, democracy and progress that the developed countries that operate under a free enterprise system have produced...just one. Quote all of the "theories" of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao you want, but the fact is that Communism has a history of being the most brutal, destructive, repressive and backward system of society the world has ever seen...

Remember, just one.

[Korono]

Show me just ONE country in the entire history of so-called Communism that has produced the freedom, wealth, democracy and progress that the developed countries that operate under a free enterprise system have produced...just one. Quote all of the "theories" of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao you want, but the fact is that Communism has a history of being the most brutal, destructive, repressive and backward system of society the world has ever seen...

Remember, just one.

Umm... Communism stops being communism if it becomes democratic or functions under free enterprise. It's a totalitarian system of government, there can be no democracy or free enterprise or else it is not definiciarily communism. Therefore, none have. And I would like to know which country you think is the one that could. That is, if it could

[freakazoid]

Umm... Communism stops being communism if it becomes democratic or functions under free enterprise. It's a totalitarian system of government, there can be no democracy or free enterprise or else it is not definiciarily communism. Therefore, none have. And I would like to know which country you think is the one that could. That is, if it could
** Could what? No really sure what you are asking.

** "definiciarily" ?? Means what? ....from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) - No entry found for "definiciarily." :confused:

[round_eyed_bugger]

Umm... Communism stops being communism if it becomes democratic or functions under free enterprise. It's a totalitarian system of government, there can be no democracy or free enterprise or else it is not definiciarily communism. Therefore, none have. And I would like to know which country you think is the one that could. That is, if it could

I'll reply to your last post in due time. But as this quote of yours is easy (and quick) to reply to, I guess I'll put in a word.
You don't know much about communism. That's not to say I'm the Marx wizkid, but what you're talking about is not communism. A true communist society, in its final form, is, well, anarchy defined. That is, there is no government. A government is only present in the stages leading up to communism. That government is, to put it weirdly, a monarchy consisting of the proletariat (the workers).
As I said before, I'll reply sooner or later to your earlier post. And I'm waiting for the bullshit.com psycho (proud2bwhite) to put in something. If he does post, then, hey, atleast we get to bash someone brainlessly.

[freakazoid]

I'll reply to your last post in due time. But as this quote of yours is easy (and quick) to reply to, I guess I'll put in a word.
You don't know much about communism. That's not to say I'm the Marx wizkid, but what you're talking about is not communism. A true communist society, in its final form, is, well, anarchy defined. That is, there is no government. A government is only present in the stages leading up to communism. That government is, to put it weirdly, a monarchy consisting of the proletariat (the workers).
As I said before, I'll reply sooner or later to your earlier post. And I'm waiting for the bullshit.com psycho (proud2bwhite) to put in something. If he does post, then, hey, atleast we get to bash someone brainlessly.

round_eyed_bugger...please respond to my challenge of...

Show me just ONE country in the entire history of so-called Communism that has produced the freedom, wealth, democracy and progress that the developed countries that operate under a free enterprise system have produced...just one. Quote all of the "theories" of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao you want, but the fact is that Communism has a history of being the most brutal, destructive, repressive and backward system of society the world has ever seen...

Remember, just one.

Thank you.

PS, you don't have to wait for 'proud2bwhite" to do anything; we already know he's a moron.

[round_eyed_bugger]

freakazoid - my answer lies in my last post. Pure communism has never existed in the modern world. The stage prior to implementation of communism has existed. For example, Russia was in that stage when it fell. Well, maybe not, because Gorbachev screwed up the whole commune idea (though he was, i think, a good man).

[freakazoid]

freakazoid - my answer lies in my last post. Pure communism has never existed in the modern world. The stage prior to implementation of communism has existed. For example, Russia was in that stage when it fell. Well, maybe not, because Gorbachev screwed up the whole commune idea (though he was, i think, a good man).

Communists attempt to make that claim repeatedly now that the world has seen it fail. "We have yet to see real communism." Whether or not "true communism" has yet to be seen or not, the path that communist choose to arrive at their vision has wreaked massive and terrible destruction on humanity with no proof at all that it could ever accomplish anything of value irregardless of the unproven and lofty claims of it's inteligencia. It has repressed and murdered as a doctrine of its creed. No, I am sorry my friend, it is a failed concept utterly void of virtue. Your answer may reside in the past, but it is certain that communism does not lay in the future.

[RandomPerson]

Actually, the idea of communism is a great one that places everybody as equals. It eliminates class structure and guaranteed everybody a job. The only problem is that communism is a dream. It is an ideal that can and will never be accomplished because of the nature of humans. Nobody has ever been a communist because it simply has never existed. It is an idea that the so called communists liked and wished it could be brought into existance. The Russians were actually socialists, not communists. I think it Lenin, though, that started the whole socialist beginnings. He thought that socialism was the initial step before communism. Only problem was that the methods to accomplish the goal were flawed. Socialism has failed and doesn't hold much value anymore. Communism, or more correctly the attempt at communism, has failed, but it is not devoid of virtue. If you really want to get a better understanding of it, read Marx's The Communist Manifesto. You'll understand what Communism is really about then as long as you can comprehend it.

[Korono]

** Could what? No really sure what you are asking.

** "definiciarily" ?? Means what? ....from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) - No entry found for "definiciarily." :confused:

If it hypothetically could be a free market communism.

And, yeah, definiciarily is a neolagism. Simply look at the root and the suffix and figure out what it means.


A true communist society, in its final form, is, well, anarchy defined. That is, there is no government.

No...no, it isn't. Tell, what exactly makes you a "wizkid"? My credentials are as follows: I was born in the USSR, my entire family has experianced this style of government, I have studied it vigorously in my life and have studied it in college. Also, Marx didn't create the Communist party or the idea of it, he was simply given the duty of writing their manifesto, which he unfortunately filled with many of his own opinions.

[hkdbadreligion]

So... what would be the "best" government for a united world?

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Hard to answer. Everyone will have their own opposing opinions about this, and the only way to verify any one of them would be trial and error. So let's unite the world and introduce a new governmental system every generation, then decide which was the best!

[hkdbadreligion]

by doing it every generation, we may not complete a cycle with all those from the first government still living so therefore no one knows how the first were and they'd have to repeat those and it would become an endless cycle. If the results of each were recorded, one or more may appear better than in reality, like communism. How about we choose the type of government with a nice game of Rock, Paper, Sissors?

[don't be an idiot]

Let me explain to you why communism fails. First of all, communism is designed to benfit the worker. Now, lets follow the economy to find out how the worker actually benefits. First off, companies are taxed very heavily, along with workers and businessmen. This is done to be able to fund the variety of what are supposed to be effective social programs. Communism, like socialism, is also supposed to limit the rights of companies and their actions.

In France recently, we saw riots where millions took to the streets opposing reform to move away from socialism. Specifically - to pass a law that would allow companies to fire workers during their first 3 years on the job. The unions, of course, did not like this, but the reality is that this was another restriction on companies that decreased their success and ability to compete globally. Therefore, these companies were hurt and unable to grow and hire new employees, another reason the French unemployment rate is higher than 10%. Along with that, wages were forced to be low. How could this, in the end, possibly benefit the worker, for whom it was intended to help.

What happened in France is the exact model for what occurs in communism. Companies cannot compete, and the economy fails. In the Cold War, the US and Russia were locked in a arms race. Our economy withstood the economic burden, but Russia did not, and when the people became fed up, the government was overthrown.

Capitalism is how the US has become by far the most powerful country in the world, and this cannot be ignored. Socialism (a discrete version of communism) is how Western Europe is becoming less and less relevant on the global scale. Now, you might say that China is prosperous, and its economy is growing at a tremendous rate. Yet, is the average worker benefiting? Not at all. In fact, the only reason their economy is growing at such a rate is due to cheap labor, something that does not benefit the worker, and only proves to show how indifferent the Chinese government is to the people.
Communism may seem like a good idea, designed to benefit the worker, but in reality (and it has been proven time and time again), the economy fails, hurting the worker, and destroying the country.

Beyond that, you say that what I am discussing is not real communism. Communism, you say, is run by the people, to benefit the workers. Therefore, it is not concerned with big companies. If these big companies fail though, because the workers do what is best for the workers, they will find themselves out of jobs. This ideal economic principle, has never, can never, and will never work

[Paisleyspeaker]

Umm... Communism stops being communism if it becomes democratic or functions under free enterprise. It's a totalitarian system of government, there can be no democracy or free enterprise or else it is not definiciarily communism. Therefore, none have. And I would like to know which country you think is the one that could. That is, if it could


Honey,
Communism is an economic structure. Totalitarianism is a form of government. You could have a democratic communist society. And to the others remember that growth for the sake of growth is the motto of cancer.:p

[Paisleyspeaker]

You can't count the current modern China as an example of communism because they have been infiltratred by the same schools of thought that are echoing here. They are adapting capitalism to their captive labor pool, and of course they are growing, on the avaerage worker is getting screwed.
Remember that corperations, the cornerstones of our capialism are legally bound to do what ever makes the most money. They are prevented from caring about pesky little things like morals, the environment, or even their customers. As evidenced by the cigarette companies.
Communism is an ideal, that does function best in a smaller scale. It is far easier to share with people you know, faces you see. That's why the tribal examples work. There are mid-points there is a city I believe in Italy, were they have capialism but instead of corperations they have co-operations where the employees benifit as much as the board members. Communism is a wonderful ideal, capialism has become a monster in the hands of corperate leaders, the other options deserve to be explored. But the real question is :how guys ? How are you going to get those who hold the reins to give them up?:rolleyes:

[General Septem]

I dont' know what the big deal is about communism. Then again I don't understand it either.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Communism is the idea that everybody works the job that the government decides is best for them and all get basically equal pay. It doesn't matter if you're the top doctor in the hospital or the mentally challenged janitor whose only responisibility is to take out the trash, you get equal pay. Necessities such as food and health and dental care are basically provided free of charge. It's an idea where everyone is equal, but the problem is that we are far too competitive and disagreeing to decide just what's fair to be treated completely equally.

[General Septem]

I see. I came up with a similar economy, except you can choose your job and there are different classes depending on what kind of job you have. Almost everything essential is provided, and you get credits for luxuries. No taxes because you work for the government. I forget the specifics but it'll come to me. I think I wrote some of it down.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

yes, another basic idea for communism. A good idea, but something that won't ever work in the real world.

[General Septem]

yes, another basic idea for communism. A good idea, but something that won't ever work in the real world.
Yes, that would be rather generous of the government, and we can't have that. :D

[don't be an idiot]

greeaaaatttt plan - have the government give us everything we want, and we pay them nothing. this has got to work.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

It's not a matter of the government being generous, it's a matter of everyone in the economy agreeing on what everyone deserves regardless of the effort they put forth. And that will never happen.

[General Septem]

greeaaaatttt plan - have the government give us everything we want, and we pay them nothing. this has got to work.
Are you refering to my plan?

Well first, the government would not give everything we want. Only what we need to survive. And second, we would be working directly for the government, so there's no reason for taxes.

[don't be an idiot]

Wait, now I'm confused. So we're working for the government, and the government runs more like a business. But, if we are employed by the government, does that not present a chance for despotism to grow? I don't know if any of you have seen the Twilight Zone episode, where a despotic ruler assigns the death penalty to those who are seen as "obsolete". If we rely on our government for jobs and there is no competiton to get jobs from, wouldn't the government have a virtual monopoly over everything we need? And wouldn't the government have complete control over the population. Sure, you say, what about checks and balances and representation? Well, all it takes is a mis-guided population to begin to elect radical leaders, and well - you get Cuba, Vietnam, China, and North Korea.
This centralization of power is very dangerous, and in the wrong hands, the government could develop complete control over its people. As Adlai Stevenson said, "Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity – in short, of tyranny – and it is committed to making tyranny universal." Although theoretically, communism does not involve tyrants or despotic rule, rationally, communism will lead to tyranic rule.

[General Septem]

First of all, I'm not describing Communism.

No, the government would not be like a business. In fact people can start their own businesses, but they'd be registered with the state and they'd effectively be working for the state. But it would also be their business, and they'd be able to do just about anything they want with it. Not everything would necessarily make the government money.

As for killing the obsolete, the government like I said already gives incentives to work by giving citizens what they need to survive, and their level of comfort (i.e., how big their house would be) would depend on what and how much they're doing. Those who don't work well just don't get much in return.

It actually probably wouldn't work in practice for a variety of reasons. It's actually something I made up for a story I'm writing. I'm not even sure I'll end up using it.

[Paisleyspeaker]

What a bunch of classist pigs. What is so inheirently wrong with everyone having the same rate of pay? With everyone having enough to survive? I just don't get your complaints. Explain it to me, cuz from where I sit it just looks like greed.
It's just like this strange thing the people here in the US do, when they continue to protect the rich, even when these same rich people are fucking them. The idea that rich people are special or deserve more is stupid. Behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Most of the wealthy families you all admire so got their money from selling the diffrent sides of the Civil war boats that would sink when they were boarded, and guns that would blow up in soldiers hands.(Rockefeller) Or they made money running rum during prohibition(Kennedy's) . These were not fortunes stemming from good ideas or hard work. In fact it is almost impossible to amass such sums morally. And once they amassed these fortunes they behaved so badly to secure and grow them that an entire type of law was created (anti-trust)
And as for doctors, most of them got into and through school because they came from families with money. Most didn't do anything extrordinary, they just did what was expected of them. Adlai Stevenson was a cold warrior, of course he would say that, totalitarian communes were all he saw. He also didn't say that living in the branded corperate world that we do. And I believe you would get a fairer deal working for society (the idea is that you are working with and for your society, not your government) than your corperate master. Because in the communist system the leader would make what you make, not 400 times what you make.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

But to have it your way how can we properly encourage people to do jobs well, jobs that are difficult and very strongly needed? Being a surgeon is no stroll through the park. You have to put ALOT of effort into it just for a chance to be accepted. How are we going to encourage the masses of people that we need for doctors if we aren't paying them more? The communist idea is a good one, but it needs stretches like these to keep the occupations that we desperately need well equipped.

[General Septem]

But to have it your way how can we properly encourage people to do jobs well, jobs that are difficult and very strongly needed? Being a surgeon is no stroll through the park. You have to put ALOT of effort into it just for a chance to be accepted. How are we going to encourage the masses of people that we need for doctors if we aren't paying them more? The communist idea is a good one, but it needs stretches like these to keep the occupations that we desperately need well equipped.
If you're talking to me, they are paying more. If you're talking about Communism I agree.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

No, if I don't make a quote then I am talking to the last person who made a post. I figured that common sense would say that for itself.

[Paisleyspeaker]

So you think that most doctors and surgeons do it for the money, thats kinda scary. Maybe it's pollyanna, but I would think people would do it for more altruistic reasons, not just saving lives, but the respect and the challenge of the work. And if you took money out of the equation we wouldn't need many of the eleventy billion lawyers we have now. That would fill in some of the blanks.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Well I really don't think that there are that many people who would put that much life effort into a career, as a doctor needs to, without knowing how much more comfortable they will be financially. Sure, they probably enjoy aspects of the career also, but some extra incentive needs to be added to ensure quality work and enough work that we haven't got a shortage.

So if we get rid of the lawyers, where do they go? It's not just like they disappear, they have to do something. It's not going to be filling in any blanks, just creating more unemployment.

[General Septem]

So you think that most doctors and surgeons do it for the money, thats kinda scary. Maybe it's pollyanna, but I would think people would do it for more altruistic reasons, not just saving lives, but the respect and the challenge of the work. And if you took money out of the equation we wouldn't need many of the eleventy billion lawyers we have now. That would fill in some of the blanks.
You don't think doctors are in it for the money. I'm glad you've never gotten that sick. :/

[Paisleyspeaker]

Unemployment would be a non-issue in a socialist economy. Since we have been talking about doctors what about the health care system. Right now prices are unbelievably high. There are literally people dying because of it. Insurance companies are letting people die because treating them isn't cost effective. There was a woman in New York who died while she was fighting her insurance company over an organ transplant they would not cover, even though her policy should have covered it, and her doctor said she needed it. With Socalized medicine that would not be a problem. And I don't think it would add that much red tape either, have you ever tried to get anything out of an insurance company? Without preventative care small things become big things and people die. Most cancers are treatable if they are caught early enough. If you don't catch it until after it metastisizes your screwed. It costs less overall to supply regular check ups, than to wait. Also covering birth control is easier and cheaper than covering a pregnancy. And then there are the pharmacutical companies that charge us many times what they charge the rest of the world for prescription drugs, they say they need to fund research, but most of the testing and research done is paid for by the government. And a good number of drugs are what are called "me too" drugs. They are slightly modified versions of either a competitors drug, or another one of their own. Medicine is one of the last places that capitolisms "anything for a buck' principle should apply.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Medicine is one of the last places that capitolisms "anything for a buck' principle should apply.

It IS the last place where capitolism's "anything for a buck" principle should apply. I think that we can still run a good capitolist society, raising taxes a smudge to cover the needs for medical protection.

[don't be an idiot]

The problem with raising taxes is that it will hurt businesses, and as we have seen recently, Bush's tax cuts have brought record amounts of tax revenue. The tax cuts allowed companies to grow, gain more income, and thus more taxes ended up coming out of the companies. If you raise taxes, you will hurt businesses, thus hurting tax revenue, thus decreasing the amount of money the government can spend on programs to benefit the citizens.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Okay, so then lower taxes to allow for it instead.

[hkdbadreligion]

all sales tax for every state should be like 4 or 5%. With 295,734,134 people living in america the govnt will still make more than they need.

[General Septem]

all sales tax for every state should be like 4 or 5%. With 295,734,134 people living in america the govnt will still make more than they need.
The problem is the sales tax just goes to the state, not the government. However a federal sales tax would be better than how they're doing it now in so many ways. They wouldn't be "punishing" people for making money, no loopholes for the rich people, and no paperwork, for starters.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

They wouldn't be "punishing" people for making money, no loopholes for the rich people, and no paperwork, for starters.

They're not really punishing people for making money. It may look that way in the black and white, but these people still are making more money than others who are making less in the before taxes side of it. The difference just isn't linear. You need a bit of a mathematical mindset to understand what you're actually being paid after taxes and to realize that the after tax pay is what you SHOULD be considering when accepting a job.

[General Septem]

You're still paying taxes based on how much you make, though. Even though it's not like that, there's a psychological thing that goes on which can cause people to not want to make more money. It can be subconscious but I've seen people be right up front about it too. I just think federal sales tax would be more reasonable. This way you pay taxes based on what you spend and not on what you make.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

That is the capitolist way to go about it, but pure capitolism isn't perfect. I really think that we'd be better off taxing on how much you make as well as how much you spend, (as we're doing now). It evens things out a bit more in the long run, especially for those people who make SO much money that even when they're being extravagant with their spending they are pulling in more money than they're shelling out, and thus paying a smaller portion of the taxes than they should because of their abilities to do so.

[Paisleyspeaker]

You speak of not wanting to make more money like it is a disease. What is wrong with only taking what you need?

[General Septem]

You speak of not wanting to make more money like it is a disease. What is wrong with only taking what you need?
I was referring to people who don't even take as much as they need. Like they'll settle for living unhappily (keyword: unhappily) because "if I make more money I'll have to pay the government more". It's bullshit.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Some people really hate the government. They'd do anything to see it go down, even if they have to go down with it ----or ahead of it as these people of yours are doing.

[hkdbadreligion]

sales tax is bullshit. The government charges tax on all things imported, which most things are or parts of things are, plus they charge sales tax on them when we buy them and charge the businesses taxes for operating a business. fuck 'em

[Paisleyspeaker]

Dude, you are so right. And we get taxed in so many ways already. A product gets taxed when in is imported, then again when it is sold. The person who sells it pays a tax on their income. They payed a license fee to be able to drive there, and another fee to register the car. Then there is property tax, and exsize tax. Even your utilities are taxed. They take a considerable amount of everyones money. A federal sales tax though it sounds like a great idea, would probably backfire. It would encourage people to buy from outside the country. Either we would have to raise tarriffs, which would piss off our trading partners , or people would buy imports to save the money on taxes.

[don't be an idiot]

The problem with being taxed on how much one spends, instead of how much one earns, is that it discourages spending, which will hurt our economy. In a capitalist country, it is essential that people spend, and we are fortunate that America spends. Plus, the theoretical benefit of unrestricted economic growth in companies, fails due to the public's lack of encouragement to spend.

[Paisleyspeaker]

Don't Be an idiot, you sound like a good little supply side economist republican. Do you believe that America should use it's military to help economic progress? As we have done in Iraq and Afganistan ? If you don't already know I will tell you later about the World Bank and UNOCAL.

[Josh]

Taxing what someone earns discourages them from earning too. I mean as in the more one earns the more one pays. With communism, it doesn't matter how much I work because I will never have more than anyone else. When John Smith first came to the new world he established a settlement where any food that was grown was giving to Captain Smith (the government) and he was then to distribute it evenly throughout the community. The people said to themselves "If I work and grow food I get to eat the same amount of food as my neighbor who just sits in a tent all day and smokes tobacco; I think I'll sit in a tent all day and smoke tobacco." Consequently everyone under Captain John Smith starved to death. As most know he came back some years later and declared a settlement in which people who didn't work didn't eat.. good idea.

[Paisleyspeaker]

The didn't work, didn't eat thing is a good idea. I don't think that a functioning communist economy could support people that do nothing. But it would help curb the damage done by elitism. Once people have money and power they do everything thay can to grow and consolidate it. They make sure it gets passed on, and only associate with those who also have it. Then they and they're families are the only ones with it. Here were are extreme in it. The haves and the have nots. It is at it's worst in decades in this country. Corperate capitolism is implicitly without morals and ethics. The only thing legally required of a corp. is to make money for it's shareholders. Maybe there is a middle ground, where a CEO makes 400% what the people who work for him do. In the construction industry - house building- the men who are out in the sun actually doing the work, make about half what the homeowners are paying for their labor. Our system also has those who collect while doing little actual work. But instead of making the same, they make more.

[General Septem]

The problem with being taxed on how much one spends, instead of how much one earns, is that it discourages spending, which will hurt our economy. In a capitalist country, it is essential that people spend, and we are fortunate that America spends. Plus, the theoretical benefit of unrestricted economic growth in companies, fails due to the public's lack of encouragement to spend.
I disagree. State sales tax hasn't discouraged any spending and I don't think federal sales tax will either. You just go into a store, buy what you want, and it's all part of the bill.

[Paisleyspeaker]

The question isn't one if spending, you would still need things, so you would still buy. The question is where are you going to buy them from? There would be some people who would start buying more then just their prescription from Mexico and Canada. As well as internet shopping. If it is cheaper to just order things from outside the US, people will do that. And if we raise tariffs to compensate it will anger our trading partners. China sells us more than anyone else, and they also own our debt. I don't think we should intentionaly piss them off.

[General Septem]

I see what you're saying, but the fact remains that if state sales tax isn't causing people to buy outside of the country, we have no reason to believe federal sales tax will either. Plus shipping would likely be considerably more than tax.

[Paisleyspeaker]

People do , do things to avoid the state sales taxes. I know people up north who buy all their cigarettes in New Hampshire, because they are not as heavily taxed. They make monthy trips and buy cartons. I also knew a wealty woman who owned houses in two states, and would have goods sent to which ever one was out of state to avoid the sales tax.

[General Septem]

But generally speaking, people go to the store, buy what they need, and pay sales tax right then and there. I mean, there are ways to get out of paying income tax, too.

[don't be an idiot]

Sorry I was away, but yes I am a conservative, no I do not believe in the use of military to further economic growth - nor has our military done anything like that (and I know what you're referring to). I would like to see any evidence that that is the reason for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. If you have any, please present it.

[Paisleyspeaker]

/http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#preplan

I can't produce a document that says we invaded Afganistan to secure the oil pipeline, just a series of coincedences. check out the site, it also discusses some of the same things in Farenhiet 9/11. Of course there were officail reasons, but at least in the case of Iraq, most of those reasons were proven to be not only false, but that they mined the data redacting that which would prove them wrong, and cherry picking the little bits that would suport their agruments. They went as far as to out a CIA officer when her husband publically disproved their yellowcake uranium story.
I have seen the documents (reproductions) that contained a plan to kill US citizens to excuse actions against Cuba and the Soviet Union. I live near the base they would have used. I have heard the news reports of more than one bomb in the Okalohoma City bombing. I have seen engineers testify that both that building , and the Twin Towers fell in ways that didn't match the stories. All of that is included in that site, that film and a link in one of the threads here to another film.

[crappenfest]

Don't be an idiot,
I am glad to see that you have faith in our military, and you do not feel that it has performed any actions that would not agree with your view of what is right and wrong (just the impression I got from your post). However, I personally feel that it is just blind faith in a corupt, deceptive, manipulative organization of lairs. Upon close and informed scruitiny of it's actions, in the recent past (15 year time frame) to the present, I feel that you faith would last about as long as a snowball in a nuclear reactor. The military will not willing give you information outlined and catagorized about the crap they done and are attempting to currently get away with. Being informed and inspecting the information from all perspectives would probably make you very skeptical about the government and the way they handle alot of situations.
Our government, the way it's ran, and the self-serving attitude it possesses is something that is hard to stomach. It will and has done almost anything to get accomplished whatever the goal was. It doesn't really matter how they achieved it's goal. It as a whole is willing to kill almost anything and anyone that would stop them, be it an enemy, an ally or even it's own officials.
Feel free to debate it with me, that is what the bloggs are for. Just please have some research done on some of the past actions of the government before using blind faith as your key arguing point.

[don't be an idiot]

:mad: I like how you tell me to do my research, yet you present none of your own. The U.S. military has had a few sick people (Abu Graihab), but if you can present any real evidence showing any of these consipracies are true, please tell me.

As for whatsherface's comment about the Twin Towers, just because you hear a few nutcases testimony, doesnt mean it's true. To think that the entire government would cooperate with this, and nothing would leak, no one would tell is so wrong. To think that the U.S. government intentionally killed its citizens is disgraceful, sick, and so irresponsible. I have never even thought that i might have to be arguing such a case, so I don't know where to start, but i suggest that you stop believing what you hear from god knows who, and maybe start listenning to real large news outlets, that can ususally be trusted.:mad:

[Paisleyspeaker]

whatsherface here to clarify something, the documents from the earliy sixties that outline a plan to blow-up an airplane full of americans and make it look like an act of Cuban terrorism exist, and have never been refuted. They appear not only on that web-site , but have been part of stories on the history channel. They are an unfortunate part of our history. And the entire government wouldn't know about such a thing, it would probably be about a half a dozen or so people with the highest security clearance. Your undying belief in your goverment is sweet and naive. People are imperfect and selfish, so why would a large group of people not share those same characteristics? And as for "real" news outlets being trusted, every major news channel, and newspaper and magazine is owned. There are about eight corperations that own all the major news outlets. Research Fox news and Monsanto. There were reporters who wrote an expose on Prosilac a bovine hormone that ups milk production, and causes mastis or udder infections. Use of this hormone leads to it and pus in your milk. Monasanto threated to sue, so Fox tried to change the report to remove anything Monsanto found threating. The reporters refused and were fired. So how 'real' and trustworthy is that?

[General Septem]

whatsherface here to clarify something, the documents from the earliy sixties that outline a plan to blow-up an airplane full of americans and make it look like an act of Cuban terrorism exist, and have never been refuted.
That's right, the document was Operation Northwoods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

John F. Kennedy was not amused by this proposal, but NATO seemed to like it, because Lyman Lemnitzer became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO some time after he was removed from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I'm glad there's no danger of NATO ever being corrupt.