Now while some people thing that communism would fail after a certain point... what if... you reformed it into a more socialistic society?
In theory communism is best, we all know that. But in real life a less stringent form of goverment like socialism would be far better as we know not everyone will work equally like machines. Although socialism is similar, in many ways it is also different. It prevents the oppresive dictators from forming and more rights to the people. I believe that capitalism is about as sad as it gets. The Soviet Union would of lasted much longer had they increase consumer goods and decrease military might. See the way to a great nation is not through death and war. It is through creating a country that is so great, safe, and powerful. That people from other places would say.
Hey, would i want to fight them, they've done no harm. In fact i would rather go and fight for them than here.
It is sort of a unique form of socialism, keeping the basics, but working on the details, show others that you are strong, happy, and proud of your country. That if it came down to it. Would you give your life to go fight for your motherland? You, by your own mind, would immediately say Yes.
And to one day, have peace, by achieveing a global socialistic state. It have a end to wars, to focus on reserch in space, and work on technology for quicker food production, cheap and clean fuel sources.
To have the Reformed USSR on the globe and nothing else in my dream. For everyone to be equal and have a fair chance at life, if they want to be an astronaut, they will be. Not have some school deny him or her that dream because they can't afford the ridulose price of college.
For education and healthcare to be cheap or free. To help their neighbor in times of need. This is my dream, and i'm ready to make it happen.
[i]The Revolution is coming... The Question is... Are You Ready...?
If you're trying to start a flame war, you're failing at it. Insulting shows you cant argue back, which means I won.
Maybe you missed this post.
Capitalism fundementally rewards power. If you work at the bottom of a corporate hierarchy then you are remunerated the lowest, if you own large stock in the corporation or have a powerful position then you recieve far greater reward simply because of your power. Contribution does not come in to the equation. Simply having the power of ownership means that even if one produces nothing of worth to society one still is rewarded greatly. The bigger the actor in the market the bigger the reward and the greater the ability to 'externalise' costs. Market transactions are about transferring as much cost as possible on to others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
Big fish in capitalism survive better by forcing these costs on to their workforce, the local community, society, the environment, the third world etc. That is how profit is attained. So capitalism, or class society in general, is a situation whereupon power is the key factor in deciding where the social product ends up. The market is not the only factor. Corporations depending on their size/power can gain huge state subsidy through tax exemption, actual direct subsidy or technological advancement paid for by the state and handed to private companies etc.
If we have an economic system that rewards power then we should never be surprised by the negative effects that such a system produces. It is obvious to the materialist that it is the economic institutions we have dictate the shape of society and how humans react and behave. If we want a better society worthwhile to all its participents and one that has positive outcomes then we must chnge the economic institutions that currently exist and replace them with ones that are there to produce for society's needs not for individual private gain and the remuneration of power. The producers must have control of their factories, the community must have control of their communities. This is not only just, it is highly desirable because of the positive outcomes it will produce for society.
If we agree that rewarding power is a ridiculous way to remunerate then we agree that we have to replace the institutions that do just that and that is the only way. The corporations, the market, the state, all have to be swept away and replaced with producer self-management, participatory planning, community control etc. We should have horizontal institutions that promote and encourage positive outcomes for society not ones owned and controlled by elite individuals. Capitalists argue that their system is the manifestation of human nature. Social anarchists and commmunists see the human behavior and the class system as the product of the economic system.
We should never expect people to react positively or engage in something they have no say, power or control over and the mass of the population do not have this. Conversely, give people the power over their lives at work, in the community and in their own lives then we would see the change this has on 'human nature' and society as a whole. The destruction and replacement of the economic institutions that reward greed and power is the key to the whole 'human nature' debate. Self-management and paticipatory planning are not just alternatives to private power and corporate pillage, they are highly desirable alternatives with highly positive outcomes for the individual who particiapates and society as a whole.
Also, any sources proving I'm 12? If there are no sources it must not be true.
I did use reasoning to make my conclusion
But in regards the job argument. It's like having a choice between either answering one question in school and having it count as a homework grade, or doing a 5 page long essay but having it only count as a homework grade. Which would you prefer? It works the same way as what I described. No one wants to work more to achieve what they could have achieved by working less.
No its not like that at all. People only use analogies because they can handpick a situation that fits their argument.
If were discussing politics, keep your example around political.
No one wants to work more to achieve what they could have achieved by working less.
I doubt you know anything about psychology. Post one god dam source that is even close to backing you up.
On the flip side, I'd be interested in seeing some psychological studies from you that suggest otherwise. The argument that communism could never work due to human nature is probably the main reason I am not a communist.
Most communists work under the assumption that greed; desiring anything beyond the bare essentials is a bad thing. It's ambition's twin, and it's probably the main reason humanity is as tecnologically advanced as it is now. In addition to this point, it is also important to bear in mind that for communism to work in practice, very high levels of technological advancement are necessary, levels which I think, we have not yet reached.
I soapbox about socialism all the time and I never even did that. You guys should go back to posting on youtube or wherever you came from.
Also, communism calls for a perfect people, kiss that idea good bye
You're not even reading anyone's posts. Why should I read yours?
More people will make even more money under socialism than they would under capitalism because greedy CEOs that want to make their own country won't hog all of the wealth. Why does a CEO need to get millions of dollars while the middle class people resposible for his business's success get paid only 30-40 dollars a week? You mean to tell me you'd rather have CEOs get more money (more than they'll ever need) while the lower and middle classes get even less? I thought you guys were the greedy ones 'round here.
Like commu-capitalism, capitalism has its downsides. In a communism, you get points only if you contribute. However, with capitalism, people can, and do, make significant amounts money without making any significant contribution to society whatsoever. In fact, a large portion of the American economy is devoted to doing just this -- making money off of the concept of money alone. "Interest" is a good example of this. Once an entity has a certain amount of money, it can survive off the interest without providing any constructive contribution to society. I phrase it this way, because at that point it doesn't matter whether the entity exists or not. It is capable of becoming a pure consumer, rather than a producer. Banks, therefore, are leeches on the process of capitalism. They don't truely contribute to the advancement of society.
That's the problem with capitalism. We don't need a new government to take place alltogther. We just need to fix the one we have. Not only is it more realistic, but people will more easilly support changing capitalism into something better rather than accepting a completely new method of government. No one could handle a change so drastic.
Capitalism really only works until one company finally beats the competition and owns the economy. Absolute authoritarian socialism only works when you have a terrorist state.
Also I don't argue for Marxism, I don't even think it works. Drace is really the only Marxist voice here. I stand for democratic socialism.
Ugggggggghhhhhh Are the massive walls of text needed? I wanna debate in here but its go**** insane
They are rather necessary. One liners arn't arguments.
On the flip side, I'd be interested in seeing some psychological studies from you that suggest otherwise. The argument that communism could never work due to human nature is probably the main reason I am not a communist.
Ok but don't complain about giant texts.. People keep posting the human nature argument but always ignore my response to it, usually because its too much for anyone here to read (and someone of them even saying I have blind faith because I dont listen to their arguments). I don't think any form of debate on a philosophical or political level can be intellectual if all you do is make one line arguments, which is what 90% of the people have done.
The human nature is a brain and nothing more. The actions one takes are only results of reasoning. This is perhaps where the argument arises. That all reasoning is built around things like money and power. I have no doubt that people act in self interest, that is, they act in ways that it benefits them. The argument views greedy things such as power as self interest, while completely ignoring the good deeds of men.
If viewing self interest as anything but having one men ignore his needs and act with the will of anothers men, then human nature is not greedy. That is, unless, we say that a men wants nothing more then his beloved money. This is the core of the counter-argument.
Men's actions are done in favor of what they value, in the direction of whats they believe to be the best. While one will value the act of charity, another will not. The one who does, still is acting in self interest, since he receives pleasure from it. What separates the other is that he does not value such things, and it is not of his interests. These two are both people I tell you. They are made of the same nature, the ability to reason what is the best of things, but they will arrive at different conclusions. Thus, to have people cooperate, we would not have to change their genetic makeup, but their values which they reason upon.
I have come to understand that the answer to whther we are born greedy or not is not a simple matter of yes or no.
Men are self interested. In simple terms, we do not give ourselves into slaves. Our interactions are done in a form of trade. Things must be fair. Respect for respect, labour for labour. This is a simple nature of us which enables us to exist as civilized humans.
However, to say that we are born with lust for more is a completly another thing. For one, selfishness to this extent interferes with the human emotion guilt. I would say the reason of this very nature is to regulate this "trade". For those who do not feel guilt, do not understand their doings.
A buisnessman is the ultimate example. His job is exploitation. This is how he makes his profit. Now for a buisness owner, his life is a game in which the objective is to beat the competitor. His buisness is his hobby. When he wins big, his happy, when he loses, his sad. His reactions to the buisness are the same as of ours to a sport. A buisnessman does not think of his riches. Sure, at the enterance he is excited to enter a new world. As he adjusts, his happiness is of always. When he wins, only numbers change, if its significant enough, it causes his happiness because he has done well.
Its no lust for wealth. If so, why does a buisness men have millions in the bank he does not use? His actions are comparable to us with our hobbies. Do we call it greed that allows us to continue playing a sport to enchance our skills?
A buisness is another hobby, but is large enough to have a control of others lives. Once ones hobby becomes a buisness men, it can be compared to a willing basketball player. Always practicing aang practicing. This is greed. The statisfaction of being better. But remeber a buisness men's life has an impact over others lives. So imagine us as re ball that a buisness owns and hits the ground in every attempt of becoming better. Their tactics of profit. In a negative matter I'd say, thus it can be eliminated.
Buisness is just another hobby. Thus, its not crime against humanity to eliminate it since many exist. Its rather a system which exploits men's fair esuring system of self interest into monsters.
Moreover on the "we are born with lust" propaganda. Its clearly evident in our lives that this is not the case. What is there to explain, just look at your own life. Most never picture ourselves
Capitalism fundementally rewards power. If you work at the bottom of a corporate hierarchy then you are remunerated the lowest, if you own large stock in the corporation or have a powerful position then you recieve far greater reward simply because of your power. Contribution does not come in to the equation. Simply having the power of ownership means that even if one produces nothing of worth to society one still is rewarded greatly. The bigger the actor in the market the bigger the reward and the greater the ability to 'externalise' costs. Market transactions are about transferring as much cost as possible on to others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
Big fish in capitalism survive better by forcing these costs on to their workforce, the local community, society, the environment, the third world etc. That is how profit is attained. So capitalism, or class society in general, is a situation whereupon power is the key factor in deciding where the social product ends up. The market is not the only factor. Corporations depending on their size/power can gain huge state subsidy through tax exemption, actual direct subsidy or technological advancement paid for by the state and handed to private companies etc.
If we have an economic system that rewards power then we should never be surprised by the negative effects that such a system produces. It is obvious to the materialist that it is the economic institutions we have dictate the shape of society and how humans react and behave. If we want a better society worthwhile to all its participents and one that has positive outcomes then we must chnge the economic institutions that currently exist and replace them with ones that are there to produce for society's needs not for individual private gain and the remuneration of power. The producers must have control of their factories, the community must have control of their communities. This is not only just, it is highly desirable because of the positive outcomes it will produce for society.
If we agree that rewarding power is a ridiculous way to remunerate then we agree that we have to replace the institutions that do just that and that is the only way. The corporations, the market, the state, all have to be swept away and replaced with producer self-management, participatory planning, community control etc. We should have horizontal institutions that promote and encourage positive outcomes for society not ones owned and controlled by elite individuals. Capitalists argue that their system is the manifestation of human nature. Social anarchists and commmunists see the human behavior and the class system as the product of the economic system.
We should never expect people to react positively or engage in something they have no say, power or control over and the mass of the population do not have this. Conversely, give people the power over their lives at work, in the community and in their own lives then we would see the change this has on 'human nature' and society as a whole. The destruction and replacement of the economic institutions that reward greed and power is the key to the whole 'human nature' debate. Self-management and paticipatory planning are not just alternatives to private power and corporate pillage, they are highly desirable alternatives with highly positive outcomes for the individual who particiapates and society as a whole.
Psychological Reason why communism wont work 1.
The above links explains the ups and downs of communism and capitalism.
Did you read that yourself? It was an interesting read, but the author was mistaken on a few points.
I can make my refutation of them here if you want me to but it seems your reason for posting it was to finally provide some reasoning on the human nature argument.
There was not any psychological reasoning there though. It was again the same argument written in different words. It never tried to explain how humans are selfish or greedy, but rather took them as pre assumptions.
Well I missed this bit and ill argue it right now
I believe that people, like all animals, are organisms with an genetically programmed desire to prosper, reproduce, and expand. What we see as altruism in people is an evolved sense of mutual benefit -- I help you, you help me, we both prosper. Altruism goes out the window when the benefit is one-way.
Well for one, he himself did say believe. I do not see as to why humans would or how they even could be genetically born to reason a certain way. But I can easily agree on that statement and even use as a benefit to the communist theory.
But how could people want to prosper, to reproduce and expand, and yet reject communism, even if they see it as a perfect system to promote these wants.
It keeps being repeated that communism is an obstacle to human nature. But if humans do want to live under a communist society, then this obstacle becomes fictional, unless you are to make the argument that humans have a very deep emotional lust for greed that even reason cant cure.
@ Drace, I appreciate you going into such depth on the issue. I've just read the entire passage(the link doesn't work, but I'm already familiar with the concept of negative externalities), and I'm preparing a fairly lengthy response. However I have to be up early tommorrow morning, but rest assured, it will come.
If you give a dog a treat when he does something you want him to do, he will do it more often. If you scold the dog or take his food away when he does something bad, he will do it less often.
The same holds true for humans. If a human gets a promotion for working hard, he continues to work hard. If a human does not get promoted or is demoted, he often stops working as hard as he can or he tries to reclaim that which he lost.
That's proof that people are self motivated. Motivation is a form of greed, and you can't call all CEOs greedy because that is a drastic generalization. Yes, I think most of them are, but I also believe that their are some CEOs who do distribute their wealth to those who work under them. Of course, they still keep enough for themselves so they remain rich. Another example of human greed.
Are humans born greedy? Just because you can not answer this, does not mean that humans aren't naturally greedy. Are humans born giving? There is no proof to this either.
Oh, and babies will crab for their mother's breasts so that they may be fed milk. They want milk, they crab for it. That is why I believe that people are naturally wanting--in other words, greedy.
