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
Well I don't claim to be a communist, but I think we are inevitably going to become communist in a limited sense with regards to intellectual property.
Capitalism works pretty well as a distribution model for limited resources. When interests are successfully kept out of the legal process it is in most cases productively and allocatively efficient. But the whole basis of the system is the idea of limited resources, which is becoming obsolete in some areas of life.
Now any intellectual property can be distributed at a minimal marginal cost to as many people as want it. This is effectively an unlimited resource, and capitalism as a production model starts to break down. Its not so much that the marginal costs of production are non existent, but that they are minimal and assumed by the consumer of the goods rather than the producer through hard drive costs, ISP dues, etc. This is a pretty unprecedented situation in history, and its not clear that capitalism will be able to maintain our current level of production within it. It may end up being impossible to make money in intellectual property, or the returns may be so low that production drops significantly. Much moreso than for musicians, graphic artist may end up having a hell of a time selling work. My mom, for instance, is a medical illustrator, and much of the field is feeling the pressure from databases of stock images, and outright piracy by large corporations that they don't have the resources to fight. In another ten years, there simply may not be any reason to create generic images of any kind. If someone needs an image of a uterus, they'll just download it somewhere, either from a stock database or illegally.
It seems to me to be rather counterintuitive that an increase in technology would cause a decrease in production within a functional economic system, and some form of socialism may be the only workable solution. Todays production model for intellectual property is just too distributed to make any taditional capitalistic sense of buyer and seller.
1.)Greed 2.)Depresses ones want to strive for more.
I suggest fixing the one who wants to strive more. He wants to be successful, the he is to produce more. The more you produce, the more you can obviously get. This dosen't make it unequal because anyone who wants more "stuff" can strive to earn more. That satisfies ones need to be "better" They are allowed to think that way, but in all reality they really aren't. Everyone has the equal chance to produce more.
This fulfills greed, because the more you produce they more you can have, therefore causes more to be produced, allowing people to have more.
For example, you want a new computer. You go to ComputerStore. You tell them what type of computer you want, etc. Based on its overall value in man-hours, you are assinged to work for them for 8 hours a day, with two breaks, for five days. Because of so much production one wouldn't need to work all that much to earn the computer.
The people create the demand, and the supply, and would naturally scale itself on its own. If you want a lot of stuff, you work for it much like today. As time goes on less and less work is needed by the people until it gets to a point where nobody will have to work ever again. Robots for example would do all the work. (Please don't laugh at that) People could actually, someday, truly live, without being a slave to money. As with all things there would be a rough beginning, for example I probably wouldn't be alive to see that day, but its a gift for future generations. Soon, the central government would dissolve. Any problems that may come up could be delt with as a whole....If you see any huge flaws with this please point them out in a polite way so I can fix it.
Remember this is just a tiny piece of my total plan. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
It almost isn't communism, and it dosen't have a name, but I think it could work if all the bugs get stamped out.
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Oct 24 2003, 12:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Oct 24 2003, 12:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Fine, you made me do this...
Ok, the key problem with communism is are these.
1.)Greed 2.)Depresses ones want to strive for more.
I suggest fixing the one who wants to strive more. He wants to be successful, the he is to produce more. The more you produce, the more you can obviously get. This dosen't make it unequal because anyone who wants more "stuff" can strive to earn more. That satisfies ones need to be "better" They are allowed to think that way, but in all reality they really aren't. Everyone has the equal chance to produce more.
This fulfills greed, because the more you produce they more you can have, therefore causes more to be produced, allowing people to have more.
For example, you want a new computer. You go to ComputerStore. You tell them what type of computer you want, etc. Based on its overall value in man-hours, you are assinged to work for them for 8 hours a day, with two breaks, for five days. Because of so much production one wouldn't need to work all that much to earn the computer.
The people create the demand, and the supply, and would naturally scale itself on its own. If you want a lot of stuff, you work for it much like today. As time goes on less and less work is needed by the people until it gets to a point where nobody will have to work ever again. Robots for example would do all the work. (Please don't laugh at that) People could actually, someday, truly live, without being a slave to money. As with all things there would be a rough beginning, for example I probably wouldn't be alive to see that day, but its a gift for future generations. Soon, the central government would dissolve. Any problems that may come up could be delt with as a whole....If you see any huge flaws with this please point them out in a polite way so I can fix it.
Remember this is just a tiny piece of my total plan. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
It almost isn't communism, and it dosen't have a name, but I think it could work if all the bugs get stamped out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Interesting. Here's a bug though: you cannot simply produce all you want, in order to seek compensation. In a communist society, where all products must be planned for in the absence of market-driven capitalism, you are assigned an amount to produce. No more, no less. Overproduction is wasteful and deprives resources from other plans, and underproduction screws up the whole system of everyone getting what they need in order to be equal. If some people get what they need, and some people don't, you are back to a class-based system just like capitalism, only more shoddy, and with no way to adjust the situation. Which is what happens everytime in communist societies, until revolution or internal collapse results.
The only real problem with Communism is population size, it can easily exist in a society of 5000 people, but will probably fail with 25 million. Why? Because the less people there are in a society the closer the relationship between them is, and if you actually want everyone in your society to be happy as individuals, say like you want your friends and family to be successful and happy, this replaces the need for motivation through capitalism.
If a small city in Kansas decided to break away from the US and stop paying taxes, producing goods for export, etc. there is probably a good chance they could survive as an ideal communist society. There's a misconception that Communist states have to be huge sprawling countries, on the contrary the smaller the society the more sense of Community there is.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 24 2003, 01:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 24 2003, 01:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Oct 24 2003, 12:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Oct 24 2003, 12:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Fine, you made me do this...
Ok, the key problem with communism is are these.
1.)Greed 2.)Depresses ones want to strive for more.
I suggest fixing the one who wants to strive more. He wants to be successful, the he is to produce more. The more you produce, the more you can obviously get. This dosen't make it unequal because anyone who wants more "stuff" can strive to earn more. That satisfies ones need to be "better" They are allowed to think that way, but in all reality they really aren't. Everyone has the equal chance to produce more.
This fulfills greed, because the more you produce they more you can have, therefore causes more to be produced, allowing people to have more.
For example, you want a new computer. You go to ComputerStore. You tell them what type of computer you want, etc. Based on its overall value in man-hours, you are assinged to work for them for 8 hours a day, with two breaks, for five days. Because of so much production one wouldn't need to work all that much to earn the computer.
The people create the demand, and the supply, and would naturally scale itself on its own. If you want a lot of stuff, you work for it much like today. As time goes on less and less work is needed by the people until it gets to a point where nobody will have to work ever again. Robots for example would do all the work. (Please don't laugh at that) People could actually, someday, truly live, without being a slave to money. As with all things there would be a rough beginning, for example I probably wouldn't be alive to see that day, but its a gift for future generations. Soon, the central government would dissolve. Any problems that may come up could be delt with as a whole....If you see any huge flaws with this please point them out in a polite way so I can fix it.
Remember this is just a tiny piece of my total plan. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
It almost isn't communism, and it dosen't have a name, but I think it could work if all the bugs get stamped out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Interesting. Here's a bug though: you cannot simply produce all you want, in order to seek compensation. In a communist society, where all products must be planned for in the absence of market-driven capitalism, you are assigned an amount to produce. No more, no less. Overproduction is wasteful and deprives resources from other plans, and underproduction screws up the whole system of everyone getting what they need in order to be equal. If some people get what they need, and some people don't, you are back to a class-based system just like capitalism, only more shoddy, and with no way to adjust the situation. Which is what happens everytime in communist societies, until revolution or internal collapse results. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Could solve that by taking a census like analysis of what people will use and want in a year, and set that as a goal...yay!
If I send you a census form and ask you 'please estimate how many gallons of water you will drink this year, how many socks will you require (white/black/dress), how much cheddar cheese you plan on eating, what your requirements are for comedy/reality/drama/miniseries TV programming are, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc., do you really think you're going to get usable data from 300,000,000 people? Nevermind that it would be a census at least 1000 pages long, what if you forget something? What if something has not been invented yet but will be in february? What if people just lie to get more stuff? That's another reason why communism fails everytime - it cannot react to changing conditions, or plan correctly for the needs of its people. It's too hard a task. Find me another solution and I'll listen, though.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 24 2003, 09:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 24 2003, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Find me another solution and I'll listen, though. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Supercomputer uses other nations with capitalism as an example and calculates the need for everything depending on the amount of population, their sex, age, medical condinition and status in society. Currently something like that would insanely difficult to make, so that it works correctly and it would need to be corrected for several decades before it would start to work correctly and even then it would be needed to batch for new inventions etc.
That's the only way I can see communism work. It must be led by something non-human, something with no bonds or emotions. That is impossible for many many years, but maybe in a 1000 years?
You are describing a book written by Kurt Vonnegut in the 1950's. His first novel ever, actually. It was called 'Player Piano' and it showed how the consildation of society into a utopian perfection where computers decided everyone's needs and jobs, and how it ultimately ends in the destruction of the human spirit, enslavement and violent revolution against humanity's 'caretaker' class.
If you have not read this <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385333781/qid=1067025297/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6981335-5032925?v=glance&s=books' target='_blank'>book</a> yet, you are arguing with one hand tied behind your back. It is one of his finest works on the subject of human nature. Regardless, such a computer is highly impractical. And where are you going to get all that capitalist data from when you have converted the world? I am still not convinced that this idea is not a swiss-cheese block of practical holes.
Maybe I should check that book, sounds interesting enough. However if we are talking about supercomputers it all boils down to oh-so-boring matrix debate about 'do you want to be happy in prison or sad and free'.
The info would be of course collected from the past nations and when we slowly convert, we would use the nations that doesn't use this computer-AI-3000+. Probably highly impractical but I was talking about how the communism would have best change of succeeding. Not that we should do it.
Communism is a lost cuase, and will never work with todays mankind. Just look at North Korea. The people are suffering and dying on the streets while the top-lead go infront of cameras waving large flags and smiling in clean uniforms.
It's so corrupt it's scary. I'm glad that the comitern fell, now the people have one goal to get the nation to work. Not just working infront of a dirty machinery putting AKs together.
What would be a utopian society? This is what everybody wants, right? Everybody wants to live in a place envisioned by Milton where there is no crime, economy is abundant, and currency is a thing of the past.
Yes, that's right. There would be NO currency. Money is the root of all evil, and Milton couldn't have believed it more. He believed the reason there was corruption, greed, and such was simply because you wanted something you didn't have. If everyone had everything they wanted, this would eliminate crime, hence Utopian society would have zero crime. According to Milton, the motivation for crime is the need for something. Since currency is gone, and people can get goods and services for free, there would be no need for stealing, deception, or cheating. The economy, as a result of this limitless trade, would be a very abundant one. Outsiders would come under the premise of getting anything they wanted, and become part of the society because they would realize they have no need for greed in such a place.
Whether this is possible or not is far from proven. However, we can all hopefully agree this is the place we want to be at. This is the premium of governments, and this is what every country would want to have if it were possible. It works under the premise that everyone would cooperate for this to happen. Likewise, for communism to work, all the members of the society would have to work together. If one member didn't wish to give away the goods he produced, then one of two things happens: the goods are stolen from him, or the goods stay with him (and/or a punishment).
The differences are of course that each person keeps whatever goods aren't wanted by the general public. Everything else is circulated in a market for anyone who wants it, under the assumption that if they take your goods, you can take theirs as well at no cost. Communism requires that goods are taken and distributed back out to the people. It is a little less friendly, but it tries to do the same thing as Milton's Utopia.
My point being all governments should compare and contrast to Utopia. Utopia is ideal. Though not necessarily possible, it provides direction for comparison.
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Oct 24 2003, 03:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Oct 24 2003, 03:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Could solve that by taking a census like analysis of what people will use and want in a year, and set that as a goal...yay!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I suggest reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, where the government attempts to freeze production and consumption. I'm not going to spoil the book, but you can take a wild guess at what the result of their plan was.
The basic assumption of Communism is that the citizens are told what to do, which simply results in people either eating each other up or rebelling.
The question at hand is simple, do you want to be a slave (told how much you need to work to get a computer), or do you want to have a right to your own life? No matter how you put it, Communism means being forced to work for the sake of others, and I for one, will not stand for it.
Hawkeye- The problem with a common pool of resources is that it will begin declining until it no longer exists. Once you remove private property (which is necessary for a common pool, otherwise no one would use it) then people stop working because it doesn't bring them benefit. It is a simple concept that is not so difficult to grasp. If someone told you you could have your paycheck but didn't have to come to work any more, how many people do you think would just keep working for no reason? A healthy economy requires a simple cause and effect to be present in terms of wealth. I work therefore I am more wealthy. I built a house therefore I have a house. If the cause and effect do not exist there is no reason to ever work or build a house.
Well since my earlier post was ignored I'll just reiterate. Communism isn't meant to be a governing force, in ideal Communism there is no one "telling you what to do" you do things to benefit others in your society. The reason this doesn't work on a grand scale is because you could give a crap about one individual 3000 miles away form you, however on a smaller scale say 5000-10000 people ideal Communism can exist, and has in small instances.
The motivation of personal gain is replaced by motivation of benefits to those you care about, your community. Just like you want your immediate family and friends to be happy and succeed a person would be willing to sacrifice personal gain for the benefit of someone they care about. The idea that Communism is supposed to take place on a Global or even National level is wrong.
Although I have a theory that the existence of Capitalistic states naturally sabatoges Communism. The reason the USSR fell is because newer generations stopped caring, and saw places like America as a becon of light. However if the whole world was Communist what exactly would people have to compare to? Not to mention children raised in Utopian Marxist society would have a completely different outlook on life than we do.
<!--QuoteBegin--FascistWithANuke+Oct 24 2003, 04:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FascistWithANuke @ Oct 24 2003, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Communism is a lost cuase, and will never work with todays mankind. Just look at North Korea. The people are suffering and dying on the streets while the top-lead go infront of cameras waving large flags and smiling in clean uniforms.
It's so corrupt it's scary. I'm glad that the comitern fell, now the people have one goal to get the nation to work. Not just working infront of a dirty machinery putting AKs together. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Please don't be ignorant and stain communisms good idea with the idiots who use it as a shroud
I knew I shouldn't have told my idea now everyones getting it associated with disater before its even got a name, <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--dictionary.com+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dictionary.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->com·mu·nism: 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. 2. Communism 2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. 2.b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is no other way to put it, communism means that as a person, you do not own anything. Selfish desire to improve one's life becomes meaningless when there is no property to apply it on. Progress disappears instantly and the system collapses on itself. This is of course apart from the evils of enslaving others during the process of establishing the communist system.
<!--QuoteBegin--Menix+Oct 24 2003, 07:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Menix @ Oct 24 2003, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--dictionary.com+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dictionary.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->com·mu·nism: 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. 2. Communism 2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. 2.b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is no other way to put it, communism means that as a person, you do not own anything. Selfish desire to improve one's life becomes meaningless when there is no property to apply it on. Progress disappears instantly and the system collapses on itself. This is of course apart from the evils of enslaving others during the process of establishing the communist system.
If you have a different definition, go ahead. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Bah, following is always so much more easy than making your own definitions, no thinking involved.
ehh? Is that a flame or...am I just newbish@forums <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Wait a min; I have a queston. What's so bad about overproducing in a communist society? Monse you say CWAG's idea can't work because it would lead to overproducing of something; not true. If the government was dictating people's orders of what to make/do, then the government would easily switch from one product to another, esp. since it's all centralized. And, if there was indeed an excess, you just sell it to other countries.
Of course, if the entire world was communist, you'd have nowhere to sell your overproduction to, but then again, if the entire world was communist then obviously it would work in the first place, so meh.
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--Menix+Oct 24 2003, 07:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Menix @ Oct 24 2003, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Selfish desire to improve one's life becomes meaningless when there is no property to apply it on. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Since when is improving one's life synonymous with more property?
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Oct 24 2003, 11:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Oct 24 2003, 11:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--Menix+Oct 24 2003, 07:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Menix @ Oct 24 2003, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Selfish desire to improve one's life becomes meaningless when there is no property to apply it on. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Since when is improving one's life synonymous with more property?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you don't own any property there is nothing to improve. You build yourself a bike and it gets taken by someone else since it's not yours, how has your life improved? Any effort you put in to help yourself just goes into the communist black hole as anyone can take it away. Not to mention you don't even have a right to your own life, which makes improving it somewhat difficult.
<!--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-->So, does my idea have any flaws?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're basically suggesting eliminating money and have trade by work contracts? No money makes storage of wealth and investment nearly impossible. The economy would halt instantly and people would start developing their own currency standards whether slave-drivers like you want them to or not.
<a href='http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html' target='_blank'>Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan (1966)</a>
Besides the obvious tyranny of your proposal, the system is grossly inefficient. What if the computer store has all the workers it needs? Do they send you to another store? How will the computer store get reimbursed for the computer then? Does it even get reimbursed? What about full time jobs, what are their rewards?
All you have given us is a simple example of a work-to-buy contract, you haven't created an economic system.
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--Menix+Oct 25 2003, 08:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Menix @ Oct 25 2003, 08:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Oct 24 2003, 11:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Oct 24 2003, 11:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--Menix+Oct 24 2003, 07:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Menix @ Oct 24 2003, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Selfish desire to improve one's life becomes meaningless when there is no property to apply it on. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Since when is improving one's life synonymous with more property?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you don't own any property there is nothing to improve. You build yourself a bike and it gets taken by someone else since it's not yours, how has your life improved? Any effort you put in to help yourself just goes into the communist black hole as anyone can take it away. Not to mention you don't even have a right to your own life, which makes improving it somewhat difficult. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe this is a foreign concept to you, but when I want to improve my life, I improve myself. Not my property. There are millions of ways to improve your life that don't involve property at all. Learn a new skill, read a book, meet new people, make something you're proud of and give it away, explore some place you've never explored before . . .
Personally, I consider owning a lot of stuff to be a liability. When I think of the things that I own, the only part of that ownership that matters to me is that I have access to them when I want it. I would be perfectly happy if all my music was downloaded, if all my books came from the library, if my computer was a communal cluster machine, if all my software was open source, if I could exchange my clothes at a supply depot periodically ( I get most of them from goodwill now as it is), and if I had to go down to the music academy to practice guitar or to borrow one for an occasion. I prefer riding the bus to driving a car, and I'd rather do what needs doing for free than get paid for something useless.
CPUSA are a bunch of stalinists, the core of communism is about class struggles technology won't do anything. Most modern communists are anti-semitists anyway and racism goes against communist ideals. Stalin was an oppurtunist never a socialist leader. It was capitalism that strangled the Soviet Union in it's infancy of it's way to becoming a socialist country. I say socialist because it is only communism when there are no countries at all.
The Soviet Union basically followed Trotsky's idea of national internationalism, which basically says when one socialist country is made it must allie it self with others. The Soviet Union did that with China, and Vietnam. I don't agree with this because then those starting countries would want to be treated better once world revolution occurs, because they were there from the beginning.
Marx believed that a workers world revolution would occur due to economical depression, overproduction of goods made by Joint Stock Comapnies (Corporations, but I'm trying to stick with Marx's time period) that will make a higher supply than demand.
BTW, what's with the 'wannabe-commies' ? If you read the manifesto, and agree with it then you are a communist, if you are willing to give your life for what you believe or fight for it, you are either a revolutionary or a martyr. Either way on my opinion the best way to die is to die fighting for what you believe in.
<!--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-->Either way on my opinion the best way to die is to die fighting for what you believe in. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's how jihads get started where millions of muslims start a "holy war" for what they believe in and blow themselves up blindly for a cause which has nothing to do with them.
That's how crusades got started where millions of 'noble' paladins marched and slaughtered millions of innocents who weren't christians.
That's how any wars are started. Politicians with hurt egos, and the poor saps who are willing to die for their cause.
In a world so full of death, perhaps there are too many things to "die for" and not enough things to "live for." I, for one, am going to spend my life making things to live for. You can either waste your life for a cause you just as well could have waited 5 years and seen how stupid that would have been, or you can live your life to make the world better. The only thing I would die for is making the world better for everyone.
"CommunistWithAGun," I wonder how you claim to be a Communist while using the Capitalist argument of human nature, that has been consistently proved wrong by Communists?
If human nature is, indeed, universal, then the capitalists have trouble explaining history prior to the English Civil War. They can not explain the feudalist age, in which peasants lived from day to day as servants of the lord, and remained loyal to their masters (the only "greedy" classes in this era being the merchants, nobles, and clergymen). Or the lives of cavemen, who worked together and shared what they were able to get. I ask the capitalists what they think of religious farming communities such as those in the Midwest in which many individuals live and work together, and the societies prosper.
Even property is a new idea; the cavemen did not have a conception of property, and in the feudal era it was only the rich and noble who owned things. Now the owners of society are the bosses of workers.
Anyway, if you think that this can only work on a small scale, like a few thousand people, remember that society is organized into many small scales anyway: a factory or farming area only has a few thousand people in its economy, and in Communism they would elect a representative (instantly recallable) to a local assembly to work out affairs of the city or the area, and getting bigger until you had a world council where everyone was represented. A globalized economy IS possible without everyone working in the same factory--this is a stupid argument against Communism because theoretically, Capitalism should have the same problems--this argument is made without any real knowledge of Communism.
But there is this other argument going about, the antithesis to mine. Like mine, it draws on history and society: where I said history proved human nature inabsolute, they say it brought down the Soviet Union.
This is based on an impressionistic view of history, sort of like, "the Allies invaded Germany to save the Jews." If you look at the facts, you see that after its inception in 1917, when the Bolsheviks rose up and were then elected by the workers and famers' councils (called Soviets) of Russia, the USSR was invaded by nearly <i>every capitalist country in the world</i>.
The USA and Japan attacked from the East (over 200 Americans were killed fighting the Bolsheviks). Britain sent its forces to invade from Arkhangelsk in the North. Germany, in its independent peace settlements, had taken the Ukraine "breadbasket of the USSR" and other lands from Russia, causing massive famine that would end up killing millions by starvation. The rest of the world's bourgeois governments all played their part by sending arms, ammunition, and troops, to aid the "White" resistance under old Czarist generals.
In the chaos, the war that would claim 7.5 million lives (the vast majority from starvation) also forced the USSR to take emergency measures. What had been one of the first countries to give women the right to vote was faced with falling apart and had to take undemocratic measures, giving more power to the Bolsheviks and less to the workers' councils. Goods were scarce and NEP or "limited capitalism" was introduced. The action continued until 1921; in 1920 Poland invaded the Ukraine and had to be beaten back, but due in large part to the treachery of Stalin and Voroshilov, the counterattack on Warsaw failed and borders were settled. But despite the end of war, the USSR was still in ruins.
There had been pro-Bolshevik revolutions in Germany, Hungary, and Finland, all of which were ruthlessly put down by the German army with foreign support.
It is sad, but, the workers' movement at the time of the Russian Revolution was not strong enough, worldwide, to bring about worldwide revolution. Isolated and hurt, and run by unelected leaders, the USSR fell into the grip of Stalin. Molotov was the only surviving leading Bolshevik from the early days by the end of WWII: Stalin killed everyone, even his former allies, for criticizing him. What started out as Trotsky calling for the reinstitution of democracy and socialism ended with Stalin killing hundreds of thousands of political opponents. Far from being the paranoid act of a madman, this was a calculated act that was necessary to ensure his power.
The revolution did not stop there. Throughout the 1920's, every capitalist country was wracked with worker unrest. Most of this was betrayed by the trade unions and Social-Democrats (the "marxists" who supported WWI), who decided that getting reforms from the government was better than establishing a workers' government. The Communist Parties were forged in protest, but they all owed allegiance to the Comintern, and when Stalin took over the Comintern he used the world communist movement like a bargaining chip with other countries, selling the potential workers revolutions in Britain and eastern China in 1926-7 to the bourgeois of those nations, in return for handouts. Stalin advanced the idea that what was good for the USSR was good for the world to justify his opportunist betrayal of the revolution.
Within the USSR, control of society passed into the hands of the bureaucracy. The economy remained planned, and the USSR became an industrial superpower: human nature was nowhere to be found. The bureaucracy leeched off of the economy until its transformation into the bourgeoisie, despite attempts to overthrow it and return to the Workers'-Council system like in Hungary 1956, brutally put down by Khrushchev. But the bureaucracy was not really a ruling class. It just let the USSR on the path to degeneration. Most of the old bureaucrats bought everything after 1991 and are now businessmen. Russia's new "oligarchy" is the old Communist Party elite. If you really think that capitalism has been better than Stalinism for Russia, you aren't looking at the facts. The amount of Eastern Europeans living in poverty has gone up from 1 million to 24 million from 1989 to 1998.
On the case of the People's Republic of China, I must say that it was not a workers' revolution (after defeat in 1927, the Chinese Communist Party shifted from a worker to a peasant base, and founder Chen Duxiu went over to Trotskyism, while Mao took over as opportunist and Stalinist), nor did the Chinese revolution create a Communist country, or did it ever have that in mind. But if you really think that the Guomindang was better for China then you are sorely mistaken. It was the party of gangsters, slavedrivers, and warlords, and a corrupt mess. Stalinism like we saw in Russia and China has been ugly but it did some good things.
So to sum up, I say that it was Capitalism that destroyed Communism in its infancy, causing the Stalinist movement that wasted an entire century of worker unrest. Human nature was proved incorrect once and for all when in 1871 the workers of Paris rose up and showed the world that they didn't need bosses. That revolution lacked a solid platform and without serious leadership was put down by the French army. That is similar to what happened with the USSR. It was not HUMAN NATURE that hurt either the Paris Commune or the USSR, it was foreign armies. Now that I have opened the history books, perhaps the pro human nature folks can find some real evidence ? ? ?
Ok well you can go ahead and believe what you want, which is a failed archaiac method of eqaulity, which only modern application is a stranglehold on poorer nations, or you can open your eyes and understand that something new must be created to replace it. Its like having a law in a busy city that says "No horses can drink from the troughs during noon", Do you see what I mean? Revolutionary you are a blind zealot.
Comments
Capitalism works pretty well as a distribution model for limited resources. When interests are successfully kept out of the legal process it is in most cases productively and allocatively efficient. But the whole basis of the system is the idea of limited resources, which is becoming obsolete in some areas of life.
Now any intellectual property can be distributed at a minimal marginal cost to as many people as want it. This is effectively an unlimited resource, and capitalism as a production model starts to break down. Its not so much that the marginal costs of production are non existent, but that they are minimal and assumed by the consumer of the goods rather than the producer through hard drive costs, ISP dues, etc. This is a pretty unprecedented situation in history, and its not clear that capitalism will be able to maintain our current level of production within it. It may end up being impossible to make money in intellectual property, or the returns may be so low that production drops significantly. Much moreso than for musicians, graphic artist may end up having a hell of a time selling work. My mom, for instance, is a medical illustrator, and much of the field is feeling the pressure from databases of stock images, and outright piracy by large corporations that they don't have the resources to fight. In another ten years, there simply may not be any reason to create generic images of any kind. If someone needs an image of a uterus, they'll just download it somewhere, either from a stock database or illegally.
It seems to me to be rather counterintuitive that an increase in technology would cause a decrease in production within a functional economic system, and some form of socialism may be the only workable solution. Todays production model for intellectual property is just too distributed to make any taditional capitalistic sense of buyer and seller.
Ok, the key problem with communism is are these.
1.)Greed
2.)Depresses ones want to strive for more.
I suggest fixing the one who wants to strive more. He wants to be successful, the he is to produce more. The more you produce, the more you can obviously get. This dosen't make it unequal because anyone who wants more "stuff" can strive to earn more. That satisfies ones need to be "better" They are allowed to think that way, but in all reality they really aren't. Everyone has the equal chance to produce more.
This fulfills greed, because the more you produce they more you can have, therefore causes more to be produced, allowing people to have more.
For example, you want a new computer. You go to ComputerStore. You tell them what type of computer you want, etc. Based on its overall value in man-hours, you are assinged to work for them for 8 hours a day, with two breaks, for five days. Because of so much production one wouldn't need to work all that much to earn the computer.
The people create the demand, and the supply, and would naturally scale itself on its own. If you want a lot of stuff, you work for it much like today. As time goes on less and less work is needed by the people until it gets to a point where nobody will have to work ever again. Robots for example would do all the work. (Please don't laugh at that) People could actually, someday, truly live, without being a slave to money. As with all things there would be a rough beginning, for example I probably wouldn't be alive to see that day, but its a gift for future generations. Soon, the central government would dissolve. Any problems that may come up could be delt with as a whole....If you see any huge flaws with this please point them out in a polite way so I can fix it.
Remember this is just a tiny piece of my total plan. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
It almost isn't communism, and it dosen't have a name, but I think it could work if all the bugs get stamped out.
Ok, the key problem with communism is are these.
1.)Greed
2.)Depresses ones want to strive for more.
I suggest fixing the one who wants to strive more. He wants to be successful, the he is to produce more. The more you produce, the more you can obviously get. This dosen't make it unequal because anyone who wants more "stuff" can strive to earn more. That satisfies ones need to be "better" They are allowed to think that way, but in all reality they really aren't. Everyone has the equal chance to produce more.
This fulfills greed, because the more you produce they more you can have, therefore causes more to be produced, allowing people to have more.
For example, you want a new computer. You go to ComputerStore. You tell them what type of computer you want, etc. Based on its overall value in man-hours, you are assinged to work for them for 8 hours a day, with two breaks, for five days. Because of so much production one wouldn't need to work all that much to earn the computer.
The people create the demand, and the supply, and would naturally scale itself on its own. If you want a lot of stuff, you work for it much like today. As time goes on less and less work is needed by the people until it gets to a point where nobody will have to work ever again. Robots for example would do all the work. (Please don't laugh at that) People could actually, someday, truly live, without being a slave to money. As with all things there would be a rough beginning, for example I probably wouldn't be alive to see that day, but its a gift for future generations. Soon, the central government would dissolve. Any problems that may come up could be delt with as a whole....If you see any huge flaws with this please point them out in a polite way so I can fix it.
Remember this is just a tiny piece of my total plan. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
It almost isn't communism, and it dosen't have a name, but I think it could work if all the bugs get stamped out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting. Here's a bug though: you cannot simply produce all you want, in order to seek compensation. In a communist society, where all products must be planned for in the absence of market-driven capitalism, you are assigned an amount to produce. No more, no less. Overproduction is wasteful and deprives resources from other plans, and underproduction screws up the whole system of everyone getting what they need in order to be equal. If some people get what they need, and some people don't, you are back to a class-based system just like capitalism, only more shoddy, and with no way to adjust the situation. Which is what happens everytime in communist societies, until revolution or internal collapse results.
If a small city in Kansas decided to break away from the US and stop paying taxes, producing goods for export, etc. there is probably a good chance they could survive as an ideal communist society. There's a misconception that Communist states have to be huge sprawling countries, on the contrary the smaller the society the more sense of Community there is.
Personally I prefer Marxist Existentialism.
Ok, the key problem with communism is are these.
1.)Greed
2.)Depresses ones want to strive for more.
I suggest fixing the one who wants to strive more. He wants to be successful, the he is to produce more. The more you produce, the more you can obviously get. This dosen't make it unequal because anyone who wants more "stuff" can strive to earn more. That satisfies ones need to be "better" They are allowed to think that way, but in all reality they really aren't. Everyone has the equal chance to produce more.
This fulfills greed, because the more you produce they more you can have, therefore causes more to be produced, allowing people to have more.
For example, you want a new computer. You go to ComputerStore. You tell them what type of computer you want, etc. Based on its overall value in man-hours, you are assinged to work for them for 8 hours a day, with two breaks, for five days. Because of so much production one wouldn't need to work all that much to earn the computer.
The people create the demand, and the supply, and would naturally scale itself on its own. If you want a lot of stuff, you work for it much like today. As time goes on less and less work is needed by the people until it gets to a point where nobody will have to work ever again. Robots for example would do all the work. (Please don't laugh at that) People could actually, someday, truly live, without being a slave to money. As with all things there would be a rough beginning, for example I probably wouldn't be alive to see that day, but its a gift for future generations. Soon, the central government would dissolve. Any problems that may come up could be delt with as a whole....If you see any huge flaws with this please point them out in a polite way so I can fix it.
Remember this is just a tiny piece of my total plan. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
It almost isn't communism, and it dosen't have a name, but I think it could work if all the bugs get stamped out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting. Here's a bug though: you cannot simply produce all you want, in order to seek compensation. In a communist society, where all products must be planned for in the absence of market-driven capitalism, you are assigned an amount to produce. No more, no less. Overproduction is wasteful and deprives resources from other plans, and underproduction screws up the whole system of everyone getting what they need in order to be equal. If some people get what they need, and some people don't, you are back to a class-based system just like capitalism, only more shoddy, and with no way to adjust the situation. Which is what happens everytime in communist societies, until revolution or internal collapse results. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could solve that by taking a census like analysis of what people will use and want in a year, and set that as a goal...yay!
Supercomputer uses other nations with capitalism as an example and calculates the need for everything depending on the amount of population, their sex, age, medical condinition and status in society. Currently something like that would insanely difficult to make, so that it works correctly and it would need to be corrected for several decades before it would start to work correctly and even then it would be needed to batch for new inventions etc.
That's the only way I can see communism work. It must be led by something non-human, something with no bonds or emotions. That is impossible for many many years, but maybe in a 1000 years?
If you have not read this <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385333781/qid=1067025297/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6981335-5032925?v=glance&s=books' target='_blank'>book</a> yet, you are arguing with one hand tied behind your back. It is one of his finest works on the subject of human nature. Regardless, such a computer is highly impractical. And where are you going to get all that capitalist data from when you have converted the world? I am still not convinced that this idea is not a swiss-cheese block of practical holes.
The info would be of course collected from the past nations and when we slowly convert, we would use the nations that doesn't use this computer-AI-3000+. Probably highly impractical but I was talking about how the communism would have best change of succeeding. Not that we should do it.
It's so corrupt it's scary. I'm glad that the comitern fell, now the people have one goal to get the nation to work. Not just working infront of a dirty machinery putting AKs together.
Yes, that's right. There would be NO currency. Money is the root of all evil, and Milton couldn't have believed it more. He believed the reason there was corruption, greed, and such was simply because you wanted something you didn't have. If everyone had everything they wanted, this would eliminate crime, hence Utopian society would have zero crime. According to Milton, the motivation for crime is the need for something. Since currency is gone, and people can get goods and services for free, there would be no need for stealing, deception, or cheating. The economy, as a result of this limitless trade, would be a very abundant one. Outsiders would come under the premise of getting anything they wanted, and become part of the society because they would realize they have no need for greed in such a place.
Whether this is possible or not is far from proven. However, we can all hopefully agree this is the place we want to be at. This is the premium of governments, and this is what every country would want to have if it were possible. It works under the premise that everyone would cooperate for this to happen. Likewise, for communism to work, all the members of the society would have to work together. If one member didn't wish to give away the goods he produced, then one of two things happens: the goods are stolen from him, or the goods stay with him (and/or a punishment).
The differences are of course that each person keeps whatever goods aren't wanted by the general public. Everything else is circulated in a market for anyone who wants it, under the assumption that if they take your goods, you can take theirs as well at no cost. Communism requires that goods are taken and distributed back out to the people. It is a little less friendly, but it tries to do the same thing as Milton's Utopia.
My point being all governments should compare and contrast to Utopia. Utopia is ideal. Though not necessarily possible, it provides direction for comparison.
I suggest reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, where the government attempts to freeze production and consumption. I'm not going to spoil the book, but you can take a wild guess at what the result of their plan was.
The basic assumption of Communism is that the citizens are told what to do, which simply results in people either eating each other up or rebelling.
The question at hand is simple, do you want to be a slave (told how much you need to work to get a computer), or do you want to have a right to your own life? No matter how you put it, Communism means being forced to work for the sake of others, and I for one, will not stand for it.
Hawkeye-
The problem with a common pool of resources is that it will begin declining until it no longer exists. Once you remove private property (which is necessary for a common pool, otherwise no one would use it) then people stop working because it doesn't bring them benefit. It is a simple concept that is not so difficult to grasp. If someone told you you could have your paycheck but didn't have to come to work any more, how many people do you think would just keep working for no reason? A healthy economy requires a simple cause and effect to be present in terms of wealth. I work therefore I am more wealthy. I built a house therefore I have a house. If the cause and effect do not exist there is no reason to ever work or build a house.
The motivation of personal gain is replaced by motivation of benefits to those you care about, your community. Just like you want your immediate family and friends to be happy and succeed a person would be willing to sacrifice personal gain for the benefit of someone they care about. The idea that Communism is supposed to take place on a Global or even National level is wrong.
Although I have a theory that the existence of Capitalistic states naturally sabatoges Communism. The reason the USSR fell is because newer generations stopped caring, and saw places like America as a becon of light. However if the whole world was Communist what exactly would people have to compare to? Not to mention children raised in Utopian Marxist society would have a completely different outlook on life than we do.
It's so corrupt it's scary. I'm glad that the comitern fell, now the people have one goal to get the nation to work. Not just working infront of a dirty machinery putting AKs together. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please don't be ignorant and stain communisms good idea with the idiots who use it as a shroud
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2.b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no other way to put it, communism means that as a person, you do not own anything. Selfish desire to improve one's life becomes meaningless when there is no property to apply it on. Progress disappears instantly and the system collapses on itself. This is of course apart from the evils of enslaving others during the process of establishing the communist system.
If you have a different definition, go ahead.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2.b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no other way to put it, communism means that as a person, you do not own anything. Selfish desire to improve one's life becomes meaningless when there is no property to apply it on. Progress disappears instantly and the system collapses on itself. This is of course apart from the evils of enslaving others during the process of establishing the communist system.
If you have a different definition, go ahead. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bah, following is always so much more easy than making your own definitions, no thinking involved.
Wait a min; I have a queston. What's so bad about overproducing in a communist society? Monse you say CWAG's idea can't work because it would lead to overproducing of something; not true. If the government was dictating people's orders of what to make/do, then the government would easily switch from one product to another, esp. since it's all centralized. And, if there was indeed an excess, you just sell it to other countries.
Of course, if the entire world was communist, you'd have nowhere to sell your overproduction to, but then again, if the entire world was communist then obviously it would work in the first place, so meh.
Since when is improving one's life synonymous with more property?
Since when is improving one's life synonymous with more property?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't own any property there is nothing to improve. You build yourself a bike and it gets taken by someone else since it's not yours, how has your life improved? Any effort you put in to help yourself just goes into the communist black hole as anyone can take it away. Not to mention you don't even have a right to your own life, which makes improving it somewhat difficult.
<!--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-->So, does my idea have any flaws?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're basically suggesting eliminating money and have trade by work contracts? No money makes storage of wealth and investment nearly impossible. The economy would halt instantly and people would start developing their own currency standards whether slave-drivers like you want them to or not.
<a href='http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html' target='_blank'>Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan (1966)</a>
Besides the obvious tyranny of your proposal, the system is grossly inefficient. What if the computer store has all the workers it needs? Do they send you to another store? How will the computer store get reimbursed for the computer then? Does it even get reimbursed? What about full time jobs, what are their rewards?
All you have given us is a simple example of a work-to-buy contract, you haven't created an economic system.
Since when is improving one's life synonymous with more property?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't own any property there is nothing to improve. You build yourself a bike and it gets taken by someone else since it's not yours, how has your life improved? Any effort you put in to help yourself just goes into the communist black hole as anyone can take it away. Not to mention you don't even have a right to your own life, which makes improving it somewhat difficult. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe this is a foreign concept to you, but when I want to improve my life, I improve myself. Not my property. There are millions of ways to improve your life that don't involve property at all. Learn a new skill, read a book, meet new people, make something you're proud of and give it away, explore some place you've never explored before . . .
Personally, I consider owning a lot of stuff to be a liability. When I think of the things that I own, the only part of that ownership that matters to me is that I have access to them when I want it. I would be perfectly happy if all my music was downloaded, if all my books came from the library, if my computer was a communal cluster machine, if all my software was open source, if I could exchange my clothes at a supply depot periodically ( I get most of them from goodwill now as it is), and if I had to go down to the music academy to practice guitar or to borrow one for an occasion. I prefer riding the bus to driving a car, and I'd rather do what needs doing for free than get paid for something useless.
The Soviet Union basically followed Trotsky's idea of national internationalism, which basically says when one socialist country is made it must allie it self with others. The Soviet Union did that with China, and Vietnam. I don't agree with this because then those starting countries would want to be treated better once world revolution occurs, because they were there from the beginning.
Marx believed that a workers world revolution would occur due to economical depression, overproduction of goods made by Joint Stock Comapnies (Corporations, but I'm trying to stick with Marx's time period) that will make a higher supply than demand.
BTW, what's with the 'wannabe-commies' ? If you read the manifesto, and agree with it then you are a communist, if you are willing to give your life for what you believe or fight for it, you are either a revolutionary or a martyr. Either way on my opinion the best way to die is to die fighting for what you believe in.
That's how jihads get started where millions of muslims start a "holy war" for what they believe in and blow themselves up blindly for a cause which has nothing to do with them.
That's how crusades got started where millions of 'noble' paladins marched and slaughtered millions of innocents who weren't christians.
That's how any wars are started. Politicians with hurt egos, and the poor saps who are willing to die for their cause.
In a world so full of death, perhaps there are too many things to "die for" and not enough things to "live for." I, for one, am going to spend my life making things to live for. You can either waste your life for a cause you just as well could have waited 5 years and seen how stupid that would have been, or you can live your life to make the world better. The only thing I would die for is making the world better for everyone.
If human nature is, indeed, universal, then the capitalists have trouble explaining history prior to the English Civil War. They can not explain the feudalist age, in which peasants lived from day to day as servants of the lord, and remained loyal to their masters (the only "greedy" classes in this era being the merchants, nobles, and clergymen). Or the lives of cavemen, who worked together and shared what they were able to get. I ask the capitalists what they think of religious farming communities such as those in the Midwest in which many individuals live and work together, and the societies prosper.
Even property is a new idea; the cavemen did not have a conception of property, and in the feudal era it was only the rich and noble who owned things. Now the owners of society are the bosses of workers.
Anyway, if you think that this can only work on a small scale, like a few thousand people, remember that society is organized into many small scales anyway: a factory or farming area only has a few thousand people in its economy, and in Communism they would elect a representative (instantly recallable) to a local assembly to work out affairs of the city or the area, and getting bigger until you had a world council where everyone was represented. A globalized economy IS possible without everyone working in the same factory--this is a stupid argument against Communism because theoretically, Capitalism should have the same problems--this argument is made without any real knowledge of Communism.
But there is this other argument going about, the antithesis to mine. Like mine, it draws on history and society: where I said history proved human nature inabsolute, they say it brought down the Soviet Union.
This is based on an impressionistic view of history, sort of like, "the Allies invaded Germany to save the Jews." If you look at the facts, you see that after its inception in 1917, when the Bolsheviks rose up and were then elected by the workers and famers' councils (called Soviets) of Russia, the USSR was invaded by nearly <i>every capitalist country in the world</i>.
The USA and Japan attacked from the East (over 200 Americans were killed fighting the Bolsheviks). Britain sent its forces to invade from Arkhangelsk in the North. Germany, in its independent peace settlements, had taken the Ukraine "breadbasket of the USSR" and other lands from Russia, causing massive famine that would end up killing millions by starvation. The rest of the world's bourgeois governments all played their part by sending arms, ammunition, and troops, to aid the "White" resistance under old Czarist generals.
In the chaos, the war that would claim 7.5 million lives (the vast majority from starvation) also forced the USSR to take emergency measures. What had been one of the first countries to give women the right to vote was faced with falling apart and had to take undemocratic measures, giving more power to the Bolsheviks and less to the workers' councils. Goods were scarce and NEP or "limited capitalism" was introduced. The action continued until 1921; in 1920 Poland invaded the Ukraine and had to be beaten back, but due in large part to the treachery of Stalin and Voroshilov, the counterattack on Warsaw failed and borders were settled. But despite the end of war, the USSR was still in ruins.
There had been pro-Bolshevik revolutions in Germany, Hungary, and Finland, all of which were ruthlessly put down by the German army with foreign support.
It is sad, but, the workers' movement at the time of the Russian Revolution was not strong enough, worldwide, to bring about worldwide revolution. Isolated and hurt, and run by unelected leaders, the USSR fell into the grip of Stalin. Molotov was the only surviving leading Bolshevik from the early days by the end of WWII: Stalin killed everyone, even his former allies, for criticizing him. What started out as Trotsky calling for the reinstitution of democracy and socialism ended with Stalin killing hundreds of thousands of political opponents. Far from being the paranoid act of a madman, this was a calculated act that was necessary to ensure his power.
The revolution did not stop there. Throughout the 1920's, every capitalist country was wracked with worker unrest. Most of this was betrayed by the trade unions and Social-Democrats (the "marxists" who supported WWI), who decided that getting reforms from the government was better than establishing a workers' government. The Communist Parties were forged in protest, but they all owed allegiance to the Comintern, and when Stalin took over the Comintern he used the world communist movement like a bargaining chip with other countries, selling the potential workers revolutions in Britain and eastern China in 1926-7 to the bourgeois of those nations, in return for handouts. Stalin advanced the idea that what was good for the USSR was good for the world to justify his opportunist betrayal of the revolution.
Within the USSR, control of society passed into the hands of the bureaucracy. The economy remained planned, and the USSR became an industrial superpower: human nature was nowhere to be found. The bureaucracy leeched off of the economy until its transformation into the bourgeoisie, despite attempts to overthrow it and return to the Workers'-Council system like in Hungary 1956, brutally put down by Khrushchev. But the bureaucracy was not really a ruling class. It just let the USSR on the path to degeneration. Most of the old bureaucrats bought everything after 1991 and are now businessmen. Russia's new "oligarchy" is the old Communist Party elite. If you really think that capitalism has been better than Stalinism for Russia, you aren't looking at the facts. The amount of Eastern Europeans living in poverty has gone up from 1 million to 24 million from 1989 to 1998.
On the case of the People's Republic of China, I must say that it was not a workers' revolution (after defeat in 1927, the Chinese Communist Party shifted from a worker to a peasant base, and founder Chen Duxiu went over to Trotskyism, while Mao took over as opportunist and Stalinist), nor did the Chinese revolution create a Communist country, or did it ever have that in mind. But if you really think that the Guomindang was better for China then you are sorely mistaken. It was the party of gangsters, slavedrivers, and warlords, and a corrupt mess. Stalinism like we saw in Russia and China has been ugly but it did some good things.
So to sum up, I say that it was Capitalism that destroyed Communism in its infancy, causing the Stalinist movement that wasted an entire century of worker unrest. Human nature was proved incorrect once and for all when in 1871 the workers of Paris rose up and showed the world that they didn't need bosses. That revolution lacked a solid platform and without serious leadership was put down by the French army. That is similar to what happened with the USSR. It was not HUMAN NATURE that hurt either the Paris Commune or the USSR, it was foreign armies. Now that I have opened the history books, perhaps the pro human nature folks can find some real evidence ? ? ?