System (A) which allows "the workers" to own the means of production is good
System (B) that rewards efficiency and competion, is also commendable
however, system (A) allows inefficiencies and is subject to the fallibilty of human nature. System (B) fares better, but is easily abused, unfortuntely abusers of the system often occupy, or are elevated to executive status, and changing the status quo is difficult.
In the UK we _used_ a mixed system, with a number of basic human needs under the control of nationalised industries. Unfortunately, a number of overly zealous governments have tried to privatise these industries to remove costs and inefficiences.
In summary, both communism and capitalism are flawed, communism is unworkable in the real world, and capitalism is prone to widening wealth gaps. Neither system is "perfect" but neither are the people they try to govern.
Umm, I didn't propose a "greedy algorithm". For various reasons, all to do with the way people and organisms interact. Re-read my post. I'm talking about information, decision-making, and communication, although I may have confused with what could be taken for a mixed metaphor. I have defined a free market as simply a regulatory approach, it is not the imposition of an ideal of greed on the individual, although it demonstrably copes better with such greed as already exists. You're confusing my position with some other one you have a beef with, at least, that's how it looks to me.
On the other posts here; yeah, the trick is to get an efficient system that still has a safety-net BUT one that doesn't encourage people to freeload. God knows, I need little enough encouragement myself.
Indeed what I was saying is capitalist governments and ideologies DON'T control trade, they try to regulate the production and means of exchange - their rules are simply there to guide our "computational devices" (brains from your analogy) into getting the maximum utility out of resources. Communism differs in that it steps in and tries to determine demand and supply too.
All governments need to do is guarantee the medium and format of exchange. Let local considerations take care of the "system" of exchange
As I understand it, Communism is socialism from a revolution.
I don't think that Socialists fully understand human nature. Becuase I think they have a flawed view of humanity, I beleive there policies grounded in such inaccuracies are themselves flawed.
My favorite quote about Socialism:
Socialism is the best government, in theory. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
EDIT Oh, and Cronos- the gap between rich and poor, at least in America- isn't growing. Capitalism is creating the first mass affluence (aka Middle Class) in history. So while the amount of money to be 'poor' is the same, the large number of middle class people make the amount of money needed to qualify as 'rich' greater.
In the 80's, 70,000 (current) dollars was needed to be 'rich'. Now, its about 150,000 dollars. Why the increase? more people have more money, meaning that it takes more to be 'rich'.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Mar 24 2003, 08:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Mar 24 2003, 08:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As I understand it, Communism is socialism from a revolution.
I don't think that Socialists fully understand human nature. Becuase I think they have a flawed view of humanity, I beleive there policies grounded in such inaccuracies are themselves flawed.
My favorite quote about Socialism:
Socialism is the best government, in theory. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
EDIT Oh, and Cronos- the gap between rich and poor, at least in America- isn't growing. Capitalism is creating the first mass affluence (aka Middle Class) in history. So while the amount of money to be 'poor' is the same, the large number of middle class people make the amount of money needed to qualify as 'rich' greater.
In the 80's, 70,000 (current) dollars was needed to be 'rich'. Now, its about 150,000 dollars. Why the increase? more people have more money, meaning that it takes more to be 'rich'. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not quite, although it depends which version of communism/socialism you are talking about. A government can be socialist without having communist ideals, communist governments can ignore social welfare.
the bit about the 70's and 80s - just proves there are more rich people, not that there are any less poor. Indeed it may be evidence of a wealth gap, i.e you either have nothing, or 150,000 dollars plus...
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--smokingwreckage+Mar 24 2003, 06:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (smokingwreckage @ Mar 24 2003, 06:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Umm, I didn't propose a "greedy algorithm". For various reasons, all to do with the way people and organisms interact. Re-read my post. I'm talking about information, decision-making, and communication, although I may have confused with what could be taken for a mixed metaphor. I have defined a free market as simply a regulatory approach, it is not the imposition of an ideal of greed on the individual, although it demonstrably copes better with such greed as already exists. You're confusing my position with some other one you have a beef with, at least, that's how it looks to me.
Anyone want to actually comment on what I posted? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> "greedy algorithm" doesn't mean necessarily that the decisions are motivated by greed, just that the decisions are what appear to be locally optimal, and probably aren't generally optimal. I seriously doubt that this distributed network is capable of coming up with the optimal solution. I would argue that despite our vast communication systems no one can <i>really</i> build on the work of anyone else. Those that do are few and far between. Little scraps of signals get passed around but its rarely enuogh for the average person to gain more insight. Not to mention that not every element in the network is working towards the same goal,or even necessarily working with truthful data.
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Mar 24 2003, 02:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Mar 24 2003, 02:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the bit about the 70's and 80s - just proves there are more rich people, not that there are any less poor. Indeed it may be evidence of a wealth gap, i.e you either have nothing, or 150,000 dollars plus... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're wrong. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The amount of money to be rich (top 5%) has increased. Why? Because MORE people have MORE money. For example...
I'm living in the 60's with $70,000 (adjusted for inflation) dollars. I'm in the top 5% and I'm rich, because only a million or so people have 70k.
Its 2003. I have $70,000 dollars. I'm not in the top 5%. Why? Because MORE PEOPLE HAVE $70,000 DOLLARS, MEANING THAT IT TAKES MORE TO SURPASS THE 'RICH' BARRIER.
If there was indeed a 'wealth gap', then you would see the amount of money needed to be rich decrease. For example. I have 100 people. 3 make over 150k. The rest make much less. That would mean that 2 non rich people would qualify as rich, thus bringing the 150k standard down to there level.
And as the amount to qualify as rich increases, the amount to qualify as poor increases as well, since the increase in the middle class means that people over all have more money, meaning that many formerly middle class incomes are now qualifying as poor, even though the cost of living has not increased as much as the middle class.
I have to grovel to Nem0 for that post because that was awesome.
Anyway, I have to say these random things:
I once heard somebody say that human nature was like a disease. Communism went and tried to deny the diseases' existence. I asked myself, what is capitalism then? Embracing the disease?
A problem I've seen is the total miseducation of people (especially young people) towards communism. I saw a thread about Gamespy and how it screwed this Serious Sam community over. A lot of people called Gamespy, in this case a marauding company, "Communists." There were a few educated people there but the majority had no idea what they were talking about; they should have been chastising them as "capitalists," not "communists." Other people I've talked to imagine communists taking people as slaves, etc.
They say "Communism crumbled/fell/collapsed/was disproved" after the Soviet Union fell. Two things. The Soviet Union was only nominally a communist state. Second, were people prepared to say that democracy was disproven after Rome fell?
Communist/Socialist governments are not bad. It is the very nature of humanity that makes them fail. Humanity at heart is always grasping for something they can't have, but a Communist/Socialist society doesn't always give them what they want. So they rebel and go crazy and stuff.
The only government form that I can see functioning best in a future human society is Republicanism. Not Republicans of Democracy, but rather a true republic.
i.e. Chain of Command/Power: <b>Proconsul</b> - Similar to the president but TRUELY elected by the people, not by Senators/ Congressman with their own intrests at heart. Popular vote always wins. <b>Senate</b> - Elected by the people, for the people, and getting elected every 2 years. 2 years makes you wanna be sure you don't tick off the people who elected you. <b>Minister (governor, whatever)</b> - These are the people who you have elected to lead your particuliar state/nation/coalition. Elected every 2 years. They make up a Council type thing, where everyone has a # of Ministers based on their population. The thing is, they are always considered equal. Newly elected wield the same power as ones that have been their for decades.
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
the idea of communism is perfect on paper, but runs into snags when implemented.... Humans are inherently greedy, and they seek higher status/power/wealth. I'm all for communism but it will never work w/ out excessive force, which isn't good
Sometimes I start to wonder where independent thought leaves off and learned repetition kicks in. Kind of like asking "What is 2+2?" "Four." / "Why won't Communism work?" "Because humans are inherently greedy..."
I remember in history those kids of questions were liberally applied. It was an objective (is that the right word?) question asked in with the expectation that it would be answered factually. This is what's wrong. Communism doesn't even have a chance any more because ... people have literally been brainwashed (conditioned) to refute it. Interesting how they're not explicitly taught to hate it, just to refute it with some nice-sounding word strings. I guess it appeals to some people being able to make a cohesive and professional-sounding argument where they otherwise would not be able to. (Most of the people who babble "humans are inherently greedy" are devoid of actual knowledge once you press them further.)
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Apr 4 2003, 11:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Apr 4 2003, 11:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (Most of the people who babble "humans are inherently greedy" are devoid of actual knowledge once you press them further.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is something I've wondered a bit about. We are brainwashed (for lack of a better word) daily into wanting all manner of unnecessary things. It seems that the economy as we know it would collapse if it weren't for advertising.
How much would we really desire if left to our own devices?
Fundamental to a lot of the study of economics is the idea of "unlimited wants", the assumption that everyone will take as much as they are able to (maximizing their total utility).
I don't think I've ever really felt this way. I can easily imagine reaching a point in which I really don't want anything else. It isnt that far away. I don't know how common this disposition is though.
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Apr 5 2003, 06:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Apr 5 2003, 06:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Apr 4 2003, 11:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Apr 4 2003, 11:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (Most of the people who babble "humans are inherently greedy" are devoid of actual knowledge once you press them further.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is something I've wondered a bit about. We are brainwashed (for lack of a better word) daily into wanting all manner of unnecessary things. It seems that the economy as we know it would collapse if it weren't for advertising. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And ironically enough, this is exactely what Lenin describes in his Imperialism-theory.
I think its really cool that you guys are discussing communism, but almost everything said so far is wrong... even you Nem.
To start with Leninism and Trotskyism are the continuation of Marx and Engel's work, they do not contradict in any fashion. Stalinism and Maoism and Social-Democracy are revisionist breaks from Marxism with an objective social basis.
As for Nem's last post: Lenin wrote about a layer of workers in the imperialist centers who are bribed with the imperialist's super-profits that they exploit from the 3rd world. This doesn't amount to brainwashing, and I suspect that the majority of people who occupy this forum are petty-bourgeiois, not workers.
Anyway, as for understanding communism, I suggest starting by developing an understanding of capitalism. That's how Marx started anyway...
P.S. there has never been a socialist or communist society in human history. The closest ever achieved was the USSR which was a transitional society caught between socialism and imperialism. The imperialists eventually won that battle and now we have the war against Iraq and an inevitable 3rd inter-imperialist war on the horizon thanks to that. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
<i>You</i> think that Leninism (and in that effect, also Trotzkyism) is in continuity to Marx, and that there are no contradictions whatsoever, <i>I</i> do. This is in my perception mostly a question of priorities and interpretation. The professional revolutionaries are, if I recall one of your posts correctly, a pragmatic device to you, they're a break with the marxist ideal of the equal masses to me. Similiar could be stated about most of the other contradictions (?) I stated.
Note by the way that social-democratic movements existed since the earliest socialist theories, and by this, long before Marx finished his writings. They adapted Marx' teachings later, and many didn't revision them at all - check Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht for examples.
As for my comment about Lenins imperialism theory (which I've got to read in its entirety as soon as I've got some time), it was of course not 100% correct. But the core of the theory is that the Burgeois would use their capital to create an environment in which the Workers (and in effect also the Petty Burgeois, although they were, as far as I recall, largely ignored in most communistic theorems, their numbers dwindled, after all) would be kept from developing an identity as class. The 'bribing' would thus only be the first step - the second one would be creating an environment in which the capital that was thus given to the local Workers would be used by them to a) reach personal gain (thus eliminating the revolutionary unity) and b) benefit the Burgeois by reintegrating the Workers capital in their own property (thus fulfilling each Capitalists first and foremost aim - personal wealth). Our current society of advertizement and branding would be such an environment.
Acceptable?
[edit]As for the P.S.: You as follower of Lenin and Trotzky have to admit that the UdSSR had stopped even pursuing the aim of the revolution when the capitalistic system was reintroduced in parts during the first revolutionary winter, or at least by the time Stalin seized power. There was never a socialistic (god forbid communistic) society on this planet, period.[/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Apr 5 2003, 11:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 5 2003, 11:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the marxist ideal of the equal masses <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> please explain to me what you mean by this. i have never heard of it.
very acceptable post <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> I enjoyed reading it, even the typos. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
To clarify one point: when i was speaking about social democracy, I meant SD after 1914, at which point in became in Lenin's words, "social-imperialist." It is however interesting to look at Bernstein's theories of evolutionary socialism which were a part of SD a long time before WWI and was truly a revisionist theory of the same social base as Kautskyism and social-chauvinism.
I need you to elaborate what you mean by this passage, I don't understand (you are misusing the term 'capital'):
"the second one would be creating an environment in which the capital that was thus given to the local Workers would be used by them to a) reach personal gain (thus eliminating the revolutionary unity) and b) benefit the Burgeois by reintegrating the Workers capital in their own property (thus fulfilling each Capitalists first and foremost aim - personal wealth). Our current society of advertizement and branding would be such an environment."
i've never heard of what you are describing except from philistines, I was hoping you would know where Lenin (or any Marxist for that matter) talks about this.
p.s. your english isn't as good as i remember <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
That's what I get for posting stuff shortly after waking up...
By 'equal masses', I meant the fact that [beatingthedeadhorse] in Marx' opinion, the revolution would be an egalitarian step with no leading elite. [/beatingthedeadhorse]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->when i was speaking about social democracy, I meant SD after 1914, at which point in became in Lenin's words, "social-imperialist." It is however interesting to look at Bernstein's theories of evolutionary socialism which were a part of SD a long time before WWI and was truly a revisionist theory of the same social base as Kautskyism and social-chauvinism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's funny that we're discussing the relative marxist conviction of different socialistic movements that died away some fifty years ago, but still... I'd like to point at the USPD, a German social democratic party that broke away from the SPD after the forming of the Weimar Republic, and that had the marxist revolution as its main goal. It lost momentum when the German public got more and more radical and the KPD gained ground. The fact remains however that Lenins opinion of the 'social-imperialist' social democrats was as wrong as any generalization inevitably is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I need you to elaborate what you mean by this passage, I don't understand (you are misusing the term 'capital'):<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I used it in the capitalistic sense <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
To rephrase: 'Bribing' the masses with parts of the capitalistic profits and thus a better lifestyle would in my interpretation of the theory only be the first step of the Bourgeois to avoid a revolution in the highly industrialized states. The second would have to be the creation of a way that ensures a long-lasting 'diversion' of the working class to keep it from discovering the still existing social difference between them and the Burgeois. Step three would be the attempt of making the Workers use their share of the profits in a way that would in turn benefit the Burgeois' own wealth - to trick them into handing the money they were given back to the of the Burgeois.
In my opinion, the current system of advertisement induced longing for individual improvement of lifestyle fits this theory.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i've never heard of what you are describing except from philistines, I was hoping you would know where Lenin (or any Marxist for that matter) talks about this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said - I'm not familiar with the actual works, only with summaries and excerpts. This makes it of course very difficult to find the exact source.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Apr 5 2003, 05:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 5 2003, 05:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As I said - I'm not familiar with the actual works, only with summaries and excerpts. This makes it of course very difficult to find the exact source. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Most of them would be just slightly illegal to distribute anyway, correct?
Man, I wish I'd gotten in on this topic sooner (I can thank MonsE for keeping me away from this one). The onlt thing that this topic angers me with is that no one's mentioned my boy Engels yet! At least I don't think so, I could have just missed it in reading.
And on another note, who want's to bet that the Feds will be showing up outside all of our doors sometime soon?
Communistic writings aren't considered illegal in Germany - on the contrary, Marx' and Engels (feeling better?) writings are considered high literature.
The reason I'm usually not referring to Engels is that he, while definetely involved in the development of the actual theory, was first and foremost Marx' funder - owning his own factory, he could afford helping his intellectually superior, but financially by far inferior friend.
It is not illegal to talk about anything in the US. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution, and while some idiots try to make laws from time to time about it, whenever you take them to court you will win. Most countries do not have this law (as Nem pointed out, it's illegal to talk about all sorts of things in Germany, for example).
Before someone says 'you can't talk about Top Secret Government Stuff', it's not that simple. You can talk about things all you want, but there are some things you can't do which will endanger the public. Giving the commie russians a way to make atomic bombs, or yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater fall under that thin set of exclusions.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
After browsing the US code, I managed to find this: Title 18, section 2385 <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or ..... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Looks like my school library is in trouble (that's where I first found the communist manifesto)
That is not precisely the same thing, and falls under the (not shown above) CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES.
Like I said before, politicians can make laws all they want, if someone actually tried to use this code to put someone in jail for saying 'down with George Bush', it would be ruled unconstitutional. If you think about it practically, why have 100,000 war protesters not been put in jail for 20 years in the US in the last week?
Not constitutional. Read more about Chapter 115 here: <a href='http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch115.html' target='_blank'>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch115.html</a>
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Apr 5 2003, 12:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Apr 5 2003, 12:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That is not precisely the same thing, and falls under the (not shown above) CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES.
Like I said before, politicians can make laws all they want, if someone actually tried to use this code to put someone in jail for saying 'down with George Bush', it would be ruled unconstitutional. If you think about it practically, why have 100,000 war protesters not been put in jail for 20 years in the US in the last week?
Not constitutional. Read more about Chapter 115 here: <a href='http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch115.html' target='_blank'>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch115.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The point is not really if they're going to use it, rather that they could use it.
And why focus on chapter 115? Most of title 18 gets under my skin.
No, they can't AllUR. You are not understanding how the constituion works. There is no law higher than it, and any contradictory law made by anyone is automatically nullified by it. There are zillions of laws on the books that cannot be prosecuted and are not prosecuted, simply because prosecuting attornies know they would lose.
The same way every year some jackass politician makes it illegal to burn a flag in some hick town in America. As soon as someone burns it and someone tries to prosecute that individual, teh prosecuters lose. If they even bother to take it to trial, as they KNOW they will lose.
You may want to go read more about the US constitution before you continue this thread. I recommend going here:
I don't know why title 18 gets under your skin, much of it explains protections under law, or how to prosecute crimes like murder, rape, theft, etc. Are you in favor of that sort of activity? And I doubt you've really scratched the surface of reading it all, as it's 10,'s of thousands of pages; if you include caselaw, millions of pages.
Comments
System (A) which allows "the workers" to own the means of production is good
System (B) that rewards efficiency and competion, is also commendable
however, system (A) allows inefficiencies and is subject to the fallibilty of human nature. System (B) fares better, but is easily abused, unfortuntely abusers of the system often occupy, or are elevated to executive status, and changing the status quo is difficult.
In the UK we _used_ a mixed system, with a number of basic human needs under the control of nationalised industries. Unfortunately, a number of overly zealous governments have tried to privatise these industries to remove costs and inefficiences.
In summary, both communism and capitalism are flawed, communism is unworkable in the real world, and capitalism is prone to widening wealth gaps. Neither system is "perfect" but neither are the people they try to govern.
Anyone want to actually comment on what I posted?
Communism differs in that it steps in and tries to determine demand and supply too.
All governments need to do is guarantee the medium and format of exchange. Let local considerations take care of the "system" of exchange
I don't think that Socialists fully understand human nature. Becuase I think they have a flawed view of humanity, I beleive there policies grounded in such inaccuracies are themselves flawed.
My favorite quote about Socialism:
Socialism is the best government, in theory.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
EDIT
Oh, and Cronos- the gap between rich and poor, at least in America- isn't growing. Capitalism is creating the first mass affluence (aka Middle Class) in history. So while the amount of money to be 'poor' is the same, the large number of middle class people make the amount of money needed to qualify as 'rich' greater.
In the 80's, 70,000 (current) dollars was needed to be 'rich'. Now, its about 150,000 dollars. Why the increase? more people have more money, meaning that it takes more to be 'rich'.
I don't think that Socialists fully understand human nature. Becuase I think they have a flawed view of humanity, I beleive there policies grounded in such inaccuracies are themselves flawed.
My favorite quote about Socialism:
Socialism is the best government, in theory.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
EDIT
Oh, and Cronos- the gap between rich and poor, at least in America- isn't growing. Capitalism is creating the first mass affluence (aka Middle Class) in history. So while the amount of money to be 'poor' is the same, the large number of middle class people make the amount of money needed to qualify as 'rich' greater.
In the 80's, 70,000 (current) dollars was needed to be 'rich'. Now, its about 150,000 dollars. Why the increase? more people have more money, meaning that it takes more to be 'rich'. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not quite, although it depends which version of communism/socialism you are talking about. A government can be socialist without having communist ideals, communist governments can ignore social welfare.
the bit about the 70's and 80s - just proves there are more rich people, not that there are any less poor. Indeed it may be evidence of a wealth gap, i.e you either have nothing, or 150,000 dollars plus...
Anyone want to actually comment on what I posted? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
"greedy algorithm" doesn't mean necessarily that the decisions are motivated by greed, just that the decisions are what appear to be locally optimal, and probably aren't generally optimal. I seriously doubt that this distributed network is capable of coming up with the optimal solution. I would argue that despite our vast communication systems no one can <i>really</i> build on the work of anyone else. Those that do are few and far between. Little scraps of signals get passed around but its rarely enuogh for the average person to gain more insight. Not to mention that not every element in the network is working towards the same goal,or even necessarily working with truthful data.
You're wrong. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The amount of money to be rich (top 5%) has increased. Why? Because MORE people have MORE money. For example...
I'm living in the 60's with $70,000 (adjusted for inflation) dollars. I'm in the top 5% and I'm rich, because only a million or so people have 70k.
Its 2003. I have $70,000 dollars. I'm not in the top 5%. Why? Because MORE PEOPLE HAVE $70,000 DOLLARS, MEANING THAT IT TAKES MORE TO SURPASS THE 'RICH' BARRIER.
If there was indeed a 'wealth gap', then you would see the amount of money needed to be rich decrease.
For example. I have 100 people. 3 make over 150k. The rest make much less. That would mean that 2 non rich people would qualify as rich, thus bringing the 150k standard down to there level.
And as the amount to qualify as rich increases, the amount to qualify as poor increases as well, since the increase in the middle class means that people over all have more money, meaning that many formerly middle class incomes are now qualifying as poor, even though the cost of living has not increased as much as the middle class.
I have to grovel to Nem0 for that post because that was awesome.
Anyway, I have to say these random things:
I once heard somebody say that human nature was like a disease. Communism went and tried to deny the diseases' existence. I asked myself, what is capitalism then? Embracing the disease?
A problem I've seen is the total miseducation of people (especially young people) towards communism. I saw a thread about Gamespy and how it screwed this Serious Sam community over. A lot of people called Gamespy, in this case a marauding company, "Communists." There were a few educated people there but the majority had no idea what they were talking about; they should have been chastising them as "capitalists," not "communists." Other people I've talked to imagine communists taking people as slaves, etc.
They say "Communism crumbled/fell/collapsed/was disproved" after the Soviet Union fell. Two things. The Soviet Union was only nominally a communist state. Second, were people prepared to say that democracy was disproven after Rome fell?
more to come.
The only government form that I can see functioning best in a future human society is Republicanism. Not Republicans of Democracy, but rather a true republic.
i.e.
Chain of Command/Power:
<b>Proconsul</b> - Similar to the president but TRUELY elected by the people, not by Senators/ Congressman with their own intrests at heart. Popular vote always wins.
<b>Senate</b> - Elected by the people, for the people, and getting elected every 2 years. 2 years makes you wanna be sure you don't tick off the people who elected you.
<b>Minister (governor, whatever)</b> - These are the people who you have elected to lead your particuliar state/nation/coalition. Elected every 2 years. They make up a Council type thing, where everyone has a # of Ministers based on their population. The thing is, they are always considered equal. Newly elected wield the same power as ones that have been their for decades.
that's my .02cents at least
I remember in history those kids of questions were liberally applied. It was an objective (is that the right word?) question asked in with the expectation that it would be answered factually. This is what's wrong. Communism doesn't even have a chance any more because ... people have literally been brainwashed (conditioned) to refute it. Interesting how they're not explicitly taught to hate it, just to refute it with some nice-sounding word strings. I guess it appeals to some people being able to make a cohesive and professional-sounding argument where they otherwise would not be able to. (Most of the people who babble "humans are inherently greedy" are devoid of actual knowledge once you press them further.)
This is something I've wondered a bit about. We are brainwashed (for lack of a better word) daily into wanting all manner of unnecessary things. It seems that the economy as we know it would collapse if it weren't for advertising.
How much would we really desire if left to our own devices?
Fundamental to a lot of the study of economics is the idea of "unlimited wants", the assumption that everyone will take as much as they are able to (maximizing their total utility).
I don't think I've ever really felt this way. I can easily imagine reaching a point in which I really don't want anything else. It isnt that far away. I don't know how common this disposition is though.
This is something I've wondered a bit about. We are brainwashed (for lack of a better word) daily into wanting all manner of unnecessary things. It seems that the economy as we know it would collapse if it weren't for advertising. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And ironically enough, this is exactely what Lenin describes in his Imperialism-theory.
To start with Leninism and Trotskyism are the continuation of Marx and Engel's work, they do not contradict in any fashion. Stalinism and Maoism and Social-Democracy are revisionist breaks from Marxism with an objective social basis.
As for Nem's last post: Lenin wrote about a layer of workers in the imperialist centers who are bribed with the imperialist's super-profits that they exploit from the 3rd world. This doesn't amount to brainwashing, and I suspect that the majority of people who occupy this forum are petty-bourgeiois, not workers.
Anyway, as for understanding communism, I suggest starting by developing an understanding of capitalism. That's how Marx started anyway...
P.S. there has never been a socialist or communist society in human history. The closest ever achieved was the USSR which was a transitional society caught between socialism and imperialism. The imperialists eventually won that battle and now we have the war against Iraq and an inevitable 3rd inter-imperialist war on the horizon thanks to that. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
<i>You</i> think that Leninism (and in that effect, also Trotzkyism) is in continuity to Marx, and that there are no contradictions whatsoever, <i>I</i> do. This is in my perception mostly a question of priorities and interpretation. The professional revolutionaries are, if I recall one of your posts correctly, a pragmatic device to you, they're a break with the marxist ideal of the equal masses to me. Similiar could be stated about most of the other contradictions (?) I stated.
Note by the way that social-democratic movements existed since the earliest socialist theories, and by this, long before Marx finished his writings. They adapted Marx' teachings later, and many didn't revision them at all - check Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht for examples.
As for my comment about Lenins imperialism theory (which I've got to read in its entirety as soon as I've got some time), it was of course not 100% correct. But the core of the theory is that the Burgeois would use their capital to create an environment in which the Workers (and in effect also the Petty Burgeois, although they were, as far as I recall, largely ignored in most communistic theorems, their numbers dwindled, after all) would be kept from developing an identity as class. The 'bribing' would thus only be the first step - the second one would be creating an environment in which the capital that was thus given to the local Workers would be used by them to a) reach personal gain (thus eliminating the revolutionary unity) and b) benefit the Burgeois by reintegrating the Workers capital in their own property (thus fulfilling each Capitalists first and foremost aim - personal wealth). Our current society of advertizement and branding would be such an environment.
Acceptable?
[edit]As for the P.S.: You as follower of Lenin and Trotzky have to admit that the UdSSR had stopped even pursuing the aim of the revolution when the capitalistic system was reintroduced in parts during the first revolutionary winter, or at least by the time Stalin seized power. There was never a socialistic (god forbid communistic) society on this planet, period.[/edit]
please explain to me what you mean by this. i have never heard of it.
very acceptable post <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> I enjoyed reading it, even the typos. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
To clarify one point:
when i was speaking about social democracy, I meant SD after 1914, at which point in became in Lenin's words, "social-imperialist." It is however interesting to look at Bernstein's theories of evolutionary socialism which were a part of SD a long time before WWI and was truly a revisionist theory of the same social base as Kautskyism and social-chauvinism.
I need you to elaborate what you mean by this passage, I don't understand (you are misusing the term 'capital'):
"the second one would be creating an environment in which the capital that was thus given to the local Workers would be used by them to a) reach personal gain (thus eliminating the revolutionary unity) and b) benefit the Burgeois by reintegrating the Workers capital in their own property (thus fulfilling each Capitalists first and foremost aim - personal wealth). Our current society of advertizement and branding would be such an environment."
i've never heard of what you are describing except from philistines, I was hoping you would know where Lenin (or any Marxist for that matter) talks about this.
p.s. your english isn't as good as i remember <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
By 'equal masses', I meant the fact that [beatingthedeadhorse] in Marx' opinion, the revolution would be an egalitarian step with no leading elite. [/beatingthedeadhorse]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->when i was speaking about social democracy, I meant SD after 1914, at which point in became in Lenin's words, "social-imperialist." It is however interesting to look at Bernstein's theories of evolutionary socialism which were a part of SD a long time before WWI and was truly a revisionist theory of the same social base as Kautskyism and social-chauvinism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's funny that we're discussing the relative marxist conviction of different socialistic movements that died away some fifty years ago, but still...
I'd like to point at the USPD, a German social democratic party that broke away from the SPD after the forming of the Weimar Republic, and that had the marxist revolution as its main goal. It lost momentum when the German public got more and more radical and the KPD gained ground.
The fact remains however that Lenins opinion of the 'social-imperialist' social democrats was as wrong as any generalization inevitably is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I need you to elaborate what you mean by this passage, I don't understand (you are misusing the term 'capital'):<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I used it in the capitalistic sense <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
To rephrase: 'Bribing' the masses with parts of the capitalistic profits and thus a better lifestyle would in my interpretation of the theory only be the first step of the Bourgeois to avoid a revolution in the highly industrialized states.
The second would have to be the creation of a way that ensures a long-lasting 'diversion' of the working class to keep it from discovering the still existing social difference between them and the Burgeois.
Step three would be the attempt of making the Workers use their share of the profits in a way that would in turn benefit the Burgeois' own wealth - to trick them into handing the money they were given back to the of the Burgeois.
In my opinion, the current system of advertisement induced longing for individual improvement of lifestyle fits this theory.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i've never heard of what you are describing except from philistines, I was hoping you would know where Lenin (or any Marxist for that matter) talks about this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said - I'm not familiar with the actual works, only with summaries and excerpts. This makes it of course very difficult to find the exact source.
Most of them would be just slightly illegal to distribute anyway, correct?
Man, I wish I'd gotten in on this topic sooner (I can thank MonsE for keeping me away from this one). The onlt thing that this topic angers me with is that no one's mentioned my boy Engels yet! At least I don't think so, I could have just missed it in reading.
And on another note, who want's to bet that the Feds will be showing up outside all of our doors sometime soon?
The reason I'm usually not referring to Engels is that he, while definetely involved in the development of the actual theory, was first and foremost Marx' funder - owning his own factory, he could afford helping his intellectually superior, but financially by far inferior friend.
Does anyone know the exact laws dealing with communist writings in the US, by the way?
Before someone says 'you can't talk about Top Secret Government Stuff', it's not that simple. You can talk about things all you want, but there are some things you can't do which will endanger the public. Giving the commie russians a way to make atomic bombs, or yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater fall under that thin set of exclusions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any
such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
to do so; or
.....
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looks like my school library is in trouble (that's where I first found the communist manifesto)
Like I said before, politicians can make laws all they want, if someone actually tried to use this code to put someone in jail for saying 'down with George Bush', it would be ruled unconstitutional. If you think about it practically, why have 100,000 war protesters not been put in jail for 20 years in the US in the last week?
Not constitutional. Read more about Chapter 115 here: <a href='http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch115.html' target='_blank'>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch115.html</a>
Like I said before, politicians can make laws all they want, if someone actually tried to use this code to put someone in jail for saying 'down with George Bush', it would be ruled unconstitutional. If you think about it practically, why have 100,000 war protesters not been put in jail for 20 years in the US in the last week?
Not constitutional. Read more about Chapter 115 here: <a href='http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch115.html' target='_blank'>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch115.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is not really if they're going to use it, rather that they could use it.
And why focus on chapter 115? Most of title 18 gets under my skin.
The same way every year some jackass politician makes it illegal to burn a flag in some hick town in America. As soon as someone burns it and someone tries to prosecute that individual, teh prosecuters lose. If they even bother to take it to trial, as they KNOW they will lose.
You may want to go read more about the US constitution before you continue this thread. I recommend going here:
<a href='http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html' target='_blank'>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html</a>
I don't know why title 18 gets under your skin, much of it explains protections under law, or how to prosecute crimes like murder, rape, theft, etc. Are you in favor of that sort of activity? And I doubt you've really scratched the surface of reading it all, as it's 10,'s of thousands of pages; if you include caselaw, millions of pages.