194 replies to this topic

[sanctus]

Lol, so suddenly it becomes important which label you can put on people in this discussion :-) It should be the arguments of the person that matter. Also I never got why communist-label is a bad thing, the idea without the human factor is undeniably great, human factor though implies it breaks down and makes it all worse. I mean what would be to criticize of a system which makes all and everyone have enough? NB: I do not believe communism is a good solution, because of how we humans are wired, but the idea itself is not bad.

But I agree that rt is equally biased as fox or dayly stromer, just on other sides of the spectrum.

 

[GAHD]

... I never got why communist-label is a bad thing, ...I mean what would be to criticize of a system which makes all and everyone have enough? NB: I do not believe communism is a good solution, because of how we humans are wired, but the idea itself is not bad.

Edit: Just to be clear, the label is a "bad thing" because it's synonymous with "theft." if you don't view theft as a bad thing, then you probably wouldn't view communism as a bad thing. It usually depends on which side of the theft people are on as to how they actually feel about it.

The main arguments against Communism is that very same human factor. Every instance of it in recorded history results in mass famine, class warfare, genocide, etc... Modern examples such as Venezuela and particularly the results of Hugo Chávez show how overly enthusiastic socialism has very similar dangers. Poverty and inflation is a very real side-effect of forced wealth redistribution: it cheapens the value of work. I can't think of a country with that kind of system that isn't in constant danger of famine and universal poverty, can you? AFAIK the predictions for Canada have food prices inflating by %3.9 over the next couple months from the rampant socialist spending over the last 3 years, and that's in addition to the already large inflation that's been happening...hopefully predictions are wrong though, I like to eat.

The problem with "everyone having enough" isn't really a thing, it's "taking from people who worked harder" to "give to people who worked less" for that equality of outcome. It removes reason for people to be productive: eg if your own business endeavors did not pay you any more than a fixed amount no matter how much work and productivity you put into them, would you do more than the minimum? Even if you would, everything from the collapse of the USSR, north korea, cuba, and various other communist regimes demonstrates this basic cause-effect linkage de facto.

That's sort of outside the scope of Trump, other than how he's a pariah for socialist/communist ideologues due to his rampant capitalism and merit based philosophies/actions.

Edited by GAHD, 11 February 2019 - 05:58 AM.
Bold

[sanctus]

So I re-state what I said: the problem with comunism is not the idea but the wiring of humans. Since contributing to that everyone has enough is not an incentive  for most people, there is no incentive, with the result of "everything going down". And also agreed that history shows it. So we kinda agree. But I do not see it as theft, at least after the system is in place,, on that we disagree. One already knows that if you work much harder the only benefit is that everyone gets a tiny bit more, but one does not get much more. This is not theft, theft would be working much more and expecting to get a reward proportional to what you put in and you do not get it because state redistributes it all.
 

[Moronium]

Also I never got why communist-label is a bad thing, the idea without the human factor is undeniably great, human factor though implies it breaks down and makes it all worse...I do not believe communism is a good solution, because of how we humans are wired, but the idea itself is not bad.

 

 

I think it was Bertrand Russell who said (paraphrasing):  "Any 15 year old who doesn't espouse communism has no heart.  Any 25 year old who advocates communism has no head."

 

Youthful idealism tends to fade with experience, eh?

Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 07:13 AM.

[GAHD]

...This is not theft, theft would be working much more and expecting to get a reward proportional to what you put in...
 

I must be misreading this. Are you saying "Expecting to gain in proportion to work" is tantamount to theft? That just doesn't jive with entropy, let alone any other natural system I can think of. Eg: if you work an extra 50% more cropland than everyone else, or do it 50% better so you gain a higher yield, is that "theft" ? If you personally dig more rocks, and build more with them than someone else, is that theft? I'm having trouble rationalizing what you're saying vs cause and effect.

Again, I think this sort of thought-process disconnect is how Trump became a pariah for socialist/communist ideologues. It reads like Empty greed/jealousy of "rewards of effort" to me. What am I missing?.

[Moronium]

I must be misreading this. 

 

Sanctus can speak for himself, but I think you're misreading him.  I read it differently.  His emphasis seems to be on "expectations."  The idea seems to be that if I tell you, in advance, that I''m going to take your money, then it's not theft.

 

I don't agree, but that's the way I read him.

 

If you know you're going to have to pay income tax on what you make, then you won't "expect" to keep every dime you make.  That seems to be the idea.

[Moronium]

A typical commie slogan is that "capitalism is theft."  Essentially, that's just demonstrating who you "empathize" with.

 

Just as viable, with a different "empathy" is:

 

"Communism is theft."

 

As Bloom was saying (as I understood him, anyway), at the group level "empathy" just comes down to a matter of self-interest in most cases.  It's a matter of what group you identify with.

 

In other cases, it may just come down to identifying with a group (collectivism) versus identifying with your own damn self (individualism).  That's one fundamental difference between communism and capitalism. As a matter of psychology (which this forum is about), certain (differing) personality traits have been closely associated with those who value individualism over collectivism, and vice versa.

 

As it turns out, the leaders of commie societies (such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.) are not communist in spirit at all.  On the contrary, they are strong individualists.  They spout the creed of communism primarily as a means of gaining and keeping power.

 

On the other hand, individualistic leaders of capitalist societies have no need to resort to that kind of deception and self-contradiction.  They can just say what they really think.

 

Like Trump, ya know?

Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 09:50 AM.

[montgomery]

Consider also his reference to Russia Today (RT) as his go-to source of information.

 

This does seem like a vodka drinker's troll thread to me

Don't be afraid to go to RT.com and read what they have to say. Now is an especially good time to do so with the US planned war on Venezuela getting closer and closer. You don't have to believe what they say but if you go with an open mind, I suspect that a lot of it will start to make sense to you.

[montgomery]

So I re-state what I said: the problem with comunism is not the idea but the wiring of humans. Since contributing to that everyone has enough is not an incentive  for most people, there is no incentive, with the result of "everything going down". And also agreed that history shows it. So we kinda agree. But I do not see it as theft, at least after the system is in place,, on that we disagree. One already knows that if you work much harder the only benefit is that everyone gets a tiny bit more, but one does not get much more. This is not theft, theft would be working much more and expecting to get a reward proportional to what you put in and you do not get it because state redistributes it all.
 

Russia is not communist. No country really is if you examine the question carefully. Even China is only socialist to a degree, as is the US socialist to a degree. Although the US is likely the least socialist of all the capitalist systems.

 

China is a special circumstance which probably doesn't belong in this conversation. They have a billion and a half citizens and they've elevated hundreds of millions up out of poverty in a few years. But let's leave China out of the equation for now. They tilt the scale too much.

 

No country is entirely socialist and no country is entirely capitalist. This should be easily understood by most bright people who frequent this forum. And the more socialist the country, the happier is the country, as a general rule.

 

I think Americans should have an interest in exploring that idea further. I'll continue to offer explanations to anyone interested.

 

Fwiw, you are exactly right about the wiring of humans. It's probably capaitalism's best argument. But it doesn't take into account that pure capitalism just doesn't exist in the world.

[montgomery]

I think it was Bertrand Russell who said (paraphrasing):  "Any 15 year old who doesn't espouse communism has no heart.  Any 25 year old who advocates communism has no head."

 

Youthful idealism tends to fade with experience, eh?

Then Bertrand Russell thought he could just move on and leave it at that. He was a propagandized shallow thinker and it's people with exactly that same attitude that have done so much harm to the American way. It's simply been taken to the extreme and now it can't be hidden that it's in big trouble. People are experimenting with the extreme for solutions. "Trump"! 

[montgomery]

I must be misreading this. Are you saying "Expecting to gain in proportion to work" is tantamount to theft? That just doesn't jive with entropy, let alone any other natural system I can think of. Eg: if you work an extra 50% more cropland than everyone else, or do it 50% better so you gain a higher yield, is that "theft" ? If you personally dig more rocks, and build more with them than someone else, is that theft? I'm having trouble rationalizing what you're saying vs cause and effect.

Again, I think this sort of thought-process disconnect is how Trump became a pariah for socialist/communist ideologues. It reads like Empty greed/jealousy of "rewards of effort" to me. What am I missing?.

I think you're dead right about Trump's appeal to people who might think they have given up and are becoming socialist/communist ideologues. But now read my comments to the others and come to understand that those Trump supporters are barking up the wrong tree. Americans for the most part don't have any understanding of the fact that capitalism contains socialism to some degree. And they also confuse a degree of socialism with communism. The very word 'communism' causes flashing red lights to go off in their heads! And the propagandizing is supposed to ensure that it stays that way.

 

I think the people on this board are smarter than that. Even Moronium is going to be forced to admit he understands, and if he doesn't then he'll be left out as the dogmatic fool.

[montgomery]

A typical commie slogan is that "capitalism is theft."  Essentially, that's just demonstrating who you "empathize" with.

 

Just as viable, with a different "empathy" is:

 

"Communism is theft."

 

As Bloom was saying (as I understood him, anyway), at the group level "empathy" just comes down to a matter of self-interest in most cases.  It's a matter of what group you identify with.

 

In other cases, it may just come down to identifying with a group (collectivism) versus identifying with your own damn self (individualism).  That's one fundamental difference between communism and capitalism. As a matter of psychology (which this forum is about), certain (differing) personality traits have been closely associated with those who value individualism over collectivism, and vice versa.

 

As it turns out, the leaders of commie societies (such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.) are not communist in spirit at all.  On the contrary, they are strong individualists.  They spout the creed of communism primarily as a means of gaining and keeping power.

 

On the other hand, individualistic leaders of capitalist societies have no need to resort to that kind of deception and self-contradiction.  They can just say what they really think.

 

Like Trump, ya know?

When you've eventually finished screaming about the evils of communism, maybe your can come back to earth and start to understand that neither pure communism or pure capitalism even exist on the face of the earth. However, for you I would say that it's still important to not place your bare feet too close to the edge of your bed when you get in it at night. There is always the possibility that a stray commie, escaped from the Soviet Union, is still hiding there.

 

And now the grownups should move on to talking about the degrees of capitalism/socialism that work best in this 21st. century. 

[Moronium]

When you've eventually finished screaming about the evils of communism...

 

 

Screaming? Evil?  Heh, quite the imagination you have there, Monty.  You didn't even read that post, did you?  At best you just scanned until you could find a word or sentence that "triggered" you and which you could use as "justification" for making snide post.

Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 04:35 PM.

[GAHD]

When you've eventually finished screaming about the evils of communism, maybe your can come back to earth and start to understand that neither pure communism or pure capitalism even exist on the face of the earth...

 

And now the grownups should move on to talking about the degrees of capitalism/socialism that work best in this 21st. century. 

That is a seriously stupid splitting of hairs. Whenever capitalism is fettered by socialism inflation goes nuts in proportion to the socialism/communism, and a "not a true communism" argument is just blatantly silly in relation to that. When you devalue work by handing out "portions" of the work to those that didn't proportionately contribute it straight out destroys currency value. No communism has or can exist for an extended period because it doesn't "pull the weak up" it rather "pulls the strong down."

A lot of downright silly people like to claim Capitalism needs socialism, but that's just not true. What can you claim as a socialist part of a capitalist society that doesn't get done better by privatization and competition? Post office meet UPS and Fedex (and every courier service before them, also telecom more recently), Police force meet private security, Military meet PMC, Roadworks meet toll booth, municipal water meet bottled water, public school meet private school. Literally everything socialist is done better with free market and competition. You bring up "happiness" but really what I think you're talking about is the bliss of ignorance, right before it causes total collapse.
That's why Bernie would have lost even if Hillary didn't rig her party votes; only idiots don't see that government monopoly is a broken system.

Trump tapped that nail on the head. You're still avoiding providing legitimate evidence of evil, racism, etc... I'm going to take that as you cannot provide it and that you're hiding your head in the sand after being called out on it.
 

[Moronium]

 No communism has or can exist for an extended period because it doesn't "pull the weak up" it rather "pulls the strong down."

 

 

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." (Winston Churchill)

 

 

 

More from the Winster:

 

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

 

Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 05:17 PM.

[montgomery]

That is a seriously stupid splitting of hairs. Whenever capitalism is fettered by socialism inflation goes nuts in proportion to the socialism/communism, and a "not a true communism" argument is just blatantly silly in relation to that. When you devalue work by handing out "portions" of the work to those that didn't proportionately contribute it straight out destroys currency value. No communism has or can exist for an extended period because it doesn't "pull the weak up" it rather "pulls the strong down." [/quote]

 

You're not paying attention so let's start all over again. First, I asked that China as an example be excluded but you've decided to include China so I'll say a few things about it. China is the best example of communism in a significantly large country on the face of the earth today. And China under communism has elevated hundreds of millions up out of poverty to a degree that's never been seen throughout history. See if Moronium wants to argue that with you. I'm not particularly interested.
 

 

A lot of downright silly people like to claim Capitalism needs socialism, but that's just not true. What can you claim as a socialist part of a capitalist society that doesn't get done better by privatization and competition? Post office meet UPS and Fedex (and every courier service before them, also telecom more recently), Police force meet private security, Military meet PMC, Roadworks meet toll booth, municipal water meet bottled water, public school meet private school. Literally everything socialist is done better with free market and competition. You bring up "happiness" but really what I think you're talking about is the bliss of ignorance, right before it causes total collapse.
That's why Bernie would have lost even if Hillary didn't rig her party votes; only idiots don't see that government monopoly is a broken system.

 

Pay attention. Pure socialism or pure capitalism doesn't exist in any country. Canadians should know that; Americans aren't expected to think that deep! And for a quick answer to your question of what socialist policy can be done better than capitalism? Health care obviously, but much more. (see the health care thread) (and start a conversation on the benefits of socialism if you're interested in learning)

[

 

Trump tapped that nail on the head. You're still avoiding providing legitimate evidence of evil, racism, etc... I'm going to take that as you cannot provide it and that you're hiding your head in the sand after being called out on it. :)

 

So my last word on Trump's racism will be that he promoted racism with his birther remarks. Otherwise, we agree to disagree. 
 

Edited by montgomery, 11 February 2019 - 06:05 PM.

[montgomery]

Sorry about the quotes out of place, I don't have the time to dick around trying to fix it. Sue me if you like!